How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Sequoia]

2 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Germany is awake now and started the great clean up. It's not just Germany. The whole West, the US included, blundered. But the real blame lies in Moscow and Bejing, let's not forget that. Let's close the ranks. And let the Ukraine realize the West is doing what it can. Without that help things would look a lot worse for Ukraine.

Besides, if you look at it realistically there wasn't that much the West could have done to prevent this war. 

I agree it was a blunder but I think the blunder was caused in large part in that no one really expected the enormously greater blunder Putin made in going for a full invasion. Even if his fantasy of a short war came about, there was no way Ukraine wouldn't have been a gigantic suck on Russia until they gave up just like both the Soviets and the West did in Afghanistan.

[Haiduk]

13 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Dumb question, and I've seen that Ukrainian officials say there's no way they can relieve Mariupoll in time.  But is there actually anyway UA can relieve Mariupol?  What would it take?  It looks like RU can get supplies from both east and west -- is that so?  So would have to cut russians on two sides or make thrust to the city itself. 

What's the terrain?  Where would someone who knows the area strike?

Frontline is in 80-90 km from Mariupol. And our troops on this line involved in heavy defense battle with superior forces. Alas, in nearest time this impossible. We have to break through enemy lines, drive this 80 km on open steppe and defeat Russians in Mariupol. Defenders in the city can only stand and fight, holding down the enemy forces.  

Edited April 3, 2022 by Haiduk

[Sequoia]

Regarding Battlefront possibly doing a game about this. I can already anticipate Steve getting an ulcer coming up with all the Ukrainian TO&E.

 

 

[Haiduk]

2 minutes ago, Sequoia said:

Regarding Battlefront possibly doing a game about this. I can already anticipate Steve getting an ulcer coming up with all the Ukrainian TO&E.

 

 

This is my job and my headache %) 

[danfrodo]

5 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Frontline is in 80-90 km from Mariupol. And our troops on this line involved in heavy defense battle with superior forces. Alas, in nearest time this impossible. We have to break through enemy lines, drive this 80 km on open steppe and defeat Russians in Mariupol. Defenders in the city can only stand and fight, holding down the enemy forces.  

That's what I thought, Haiduk, very sorry to hear that.  I think I was hoping for a more optimistic answer though not expecting one.

By the way, VERY GLAD you are no longer personally under threat from Russian artillery.  I won't be surprised if Putin throws some missiles your way but at least you and Kyiv are 'safe'. 

[acrashb]

1 hour ago, Saberwander said:

I do think some IR emitters show up on camera.

Standard lenses and sensors do not transmit or pickup IR very well.  Lenses because they naturally absorb IR unless designed otherwise and sensors because coatings on the front block IR.  If this were not the case the images would look quite strange.  e.g., 

 

 

[The Steppenwulf]

1 hour ago, DesertFox said:

Those BMP-1s were first sold to Sweden (335 pieces) and there modified into Pbv 501. Then these vehicles were aquired by Czech republic and 58 pieces are now sold to Ukraine. Dunno what happened to the rest of those 335 pieces in Sweden. Greece also received some 500 ex-NVA pieces, so there is still a lot of ex-NVA stuff floating around somewhere.

It's true they had tons of equipment. The oft referred to MiG 29s were also originally NVA, sold on after German reunification, which is how the Polish acquired them.

[Haiduk]

Hm... Our Air Forces claimed they hit Russian Il-22M - aerial C3 asset. As if, according to radio interception, the plane took cockpit depressurization because of damage and conducted emergency landing in Rostov. Though, this also can be technical problem

Edited April 3, 2022 by Haiduk

[dan/california]

16 minutes ago, c3k said:

The Russian retreat from Kiev.

 

Yes, it was a defeat, and yes, some rearguards seemed to be in a rush. What is of interest to me, is the apparent lack of Ukrainian offense displayed. There were no pockets formed, no cutoffs. Were some retreating convoys harassed and fired upon? Yes, but that seems to be the limit of what occurred.

Unless I've missed a massive amount of information being relayed from the area (hey, it is possible), it is disturbing (not quite alarming) that the Ukrainian armed forces seemed to be either unable or unwilling to interdict, destroy, encircle, or press the retreating forces.

What does that matter? Well, it matters because those Russians were pulled out to reinforce the Donbass region. The Russians have gained territory. If the Ukrainian military is unable/unwilling to generate offensive combat during a retreat, how will they fare against an entrenched enemy?

Posting these thoughts because I'm (hopefully) missing something here.

I think on some level it was decided that if the Russians wanted to give ALL the land around Kyiv back, that the retreat would be left open. It a decision you can debate, but if we wanted ALL those Russian troops around Kyiv dead or captured NATO could have put its planes in the air and gotten that done. It also figures in that the most mechanized, most professional part of the Ukrainian army that could have really pushed a pursuit is in the Southeast. Except for the Unit that held Cherniv against a month of ferocious attacks by five or ten times their number. I think we can agree they did their part. And to a large extent it may simply be that the one thing tanks do better than light infantry in this war is retreat.

[sburke]

Ukrainian Civilians Kill Russian Soldiers With Poisoned Cakes: Report (msn.com)

loot this

[DesertFox]

23 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

This is my job and my headache %) 

LOL! CM:BS 2022 confirmed

[Battlefront.com]

33 minutes ago, c3k said:

The Russian retreat from Kiev.

 

Yes, it was a defeat, and yes, some rearguards seemed to be in a rush. What is of interest to me, is the apparent lack of Ukrainian offense displayed. There were no pockets formed, no cutoffs. Were some retreating convoys harassed and fired upon? Yes, but that seems to be the limit of what occurred.

Unless I've missed a massive amount of information being relayed from the area (hey, it is possible), it is disturbing (not quite alarming) that the Ukrainian armed forces seemed to be either unable or unwilling to interdict, destroy, encircle, or press the retreating forces.

You haven't missed anything as far as I know.  There's a bunch of speculation here scattered back a few pages.

One theory is some form of agreement made in Turkey to let the Russians pull out.  The benefit to Ukraine is they can avoid the costly "backs to the wall" sort of fighting it would take to mop up all the Russian pockets.  Lots more civilians would have died.  The benefit to Russia is, of course, they get out of the pickle they were in.  This theory fits all the facts quite well, so it is credible.

Personally, I think Ukraine would have better off slogging it out in this area, but then again I don't have the same information the Ukrainians do.

Another theory is as soon as Ukraine saw that Russians were withdrawing it immediately started redeploying to other sectors instead of tying up resources around Kiev.  The tradeoff here is letting Russian forces escape but accelerating the redeployment of fresh forces to other sectors.  This too fits the facts.

The last theory is that Ukraine wasn't in a position to immediately prevent a full scale withdrawal and therefore Russia was able to escape.  This also fits the facts, so is credible.

Maybe Russia left more dead and burned out stuff behind than we are counting, but for sure they didn't get pocketed in any significant numbers. 

33 minutes ago, c3k said:

What does that matter? Well, it matters because those Russians were pulled out to reinforce the Donbass region. The Russians have gained territory. If the Ukrainian military is unable/unwilling to generate offensive combat during a retreat, how will they fare against an entrenched enemy?

Posting these thoughts because I'm (hopefully) missing something here.

The Ukrainians may have calculated that being able to relocate all of their efforts over to Donbas quickly was more valuable than the gains from a prolonged fight around Kiev.  Bird in the hand?

The forces that escaped are not in good shape.  It will take time for them to reconstitute and when they do they'll have to attack in a fairly crowded area.  It's unclear how much good they'll be able to do.  More than nothing, for sure, but maybe not all that much.

Steve

[Haiduk]

9 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

LOL! CM:BS 2022 confirmed

Nope. I worked over TO&E of module. But it can be used with some changes if this hypothetical game is ever developed and released

Edited April 3, 2022 by Haiduk

[Battlefront.com]

More documentation of Russian warcrimes.  This involving the murder of a mayor and her entire family for refusing to comply with Russian occupation demands.  Their bodies were tossed into a pit behind three houses that were used by the Russian forces that murdered them:

https://www.newsweek.com/ukrainian-mayor-killed-execution-style-thrown-pit-troops-report-1694575

A warning to those who might try to defend or otherwise sow disinformation about these reports.  There will be a lot more, so if you are going to to gymnastics to explain them away I might suggest limbering up, stretching, doing yoga, or whatever you need to do because you're going to have to work really hard at creating an alternate universe where these things are somehow Ukraine's fault.

Steve

[ASL Veteran]

24 minutes ago, sburke said:

Ukrainian Civilians Kill Russian Soldiers With Poisoned Cakes: Report (msn.com)

loot this

 

[The Steppenwulf]

21 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

LOL! CM:BS 2022 confirmed

Will be retitled - Combat Mission: Special Operation 

[JonS]

The side bars about the Marders and T-72s and BMPs in the last couple of pages are kind of grimly amusing. On the one hand we're saying that 'the day of the tank is over', while on the other hand we're saying that any old rubbish is fine for the Ukrainian army as long as it has a bit of armour plate and can move itself. Have I read that about right?

I am deliberately exaggerating here, to highlight the cognitive dissonance that's going on.

The obvious deduction, IMO, is that the death of armour has been vastly overstated. Armour is a lot more vulnerable than ... well, maybe than it has ever been, but it still beats the heck out of wandering around an active battlefield clad in not much more than a cotton shirt. And it still, as always, brings the things it always has: mobility and protected direct-fire firepower. That is still super useful, especially if you're trying to move forward.

Edited April 3, 2022 by JonS

[Haiduk]

Hmmm.... This man, civil volunteer of BackandAlive fund, former marines and journalist of Mil.in.ua portal have a lot of insides. But he can't say about some things directly. Just a hints. So a hint:

At last good news with Neptune (UKR-developed anti-ship missile complex)

Maybe this sarcastic post that UK is going to supply us with anti-ship missiles, but maybe is that:

Odesa media "Dumskaya" claims UKR forces hit and damaged Russian frigate "Admiral Essen" (pr.11356R, NATO code Kryvak-V), the carrier of Calibr cruise missiles. 

Edited April 3, 2022 by Haiduk

[DesertFox]

Hmm, would love to know the story behind this. Did he drink too much coolant?...

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

19 minutes ago, JonS said:

The side bars about the Marders and T-72s and BMPs in the last couple of pages are kind of grimly amusing. On the one hand we're saying that 'the day of the tank is over', while on the other hand we're saying that any old rubbish is fine for the Ukrainian army as long as it has a bit of armour plate and can move itself. Have I read that about right?

Nope

19 minutes ago, JonS said:

I am deliberately exaggerating here, to highlight the cognitive dissonance that's going on.

Except that's not what's being discussed here.

As to what to send to Ukraine it is about the logistics of it.  In theory it would be better to send them F-16s, Patriots, Abrams, and Marders... practically that won't work.  So why focus attention on things that have no practical use to the Ukrainians now?  They clearly need something right now, so send them what they know and can support such as S-300, BMP-1, T-72s, and SU and Mi aircraft.

Do you understand the point?

The beauty of something like the Javelin and NLAW is it doesn't require a logistics chain.  It doesn't require skilled mechanics with vast stores of spare parts to keep them going.  It doesn't even require much training for the soldiers using it.  Hell, I was able to score kills with the US Army's Javelin simulator after a minute or two's instructions.  That included attaching the CLU and getting it warmed up. Some 20 years later I think I could still do it.  Piece of cake.  So sending this sort of 1st line modern equipment is practical, which is why gobs of it are already in Ukraine.

An Abrams is just a weeeeeee bit not like this

19 minutes ago, JonS said:

The obvious deduction, IMO, is that the death of armour has been vastly overstated. Armour is a lot more vulnerable than ... well, maybe than it has ever been, but it still beats the heck out of wandering around an active battlefield clad in not much more than a cotton shirt. And it still, as always, brings the things it always has: mobility and protected direct-fire firepower. That is still super useful, especially if you're trying to move forward.

The death of armor isn't here yet.  Anybody who thinks that is the case right now and in this war is wrong.  Armor is still important right now, even if the margin for error for survivability has been greatly reduced.  Therefore, if Ukraine is running low on armored vehicles we should give them as many as we can.

However, near future the importance of heavy armored vehicles will change.  There's no way it can stay the same.  The idea that heavy armored vehicles can out tech their way around the new threats is, I think, unsupportable.  But we'll see what the future holds.

Steve

[The Steppenwulf]

18 minutes ago, JonS said:

And it still, as always, brings the things it always has: mobility and protected direct-fire firepower. That is still super useful, especially if you're trying to move forward.

Yeh to remove Russia from occupied territory UA has to go on the offensive now, cannot exploit any potential breakthrough without plenty of armoured mobility. As the conditions of the war have developed, so has the West's willingness to provide the appropriate level of support.

I think the war crimes will be used as political cover for this support now -  a bit of gift in a way!

Edited April 3, 2022 by The Steppenwulf

[DesertFox]

17 minutes ago, The Steppenwulf said:

Will be retitled - Combat Mission: Special Operation 

Ahh I see. As in Leo Tolstois world classic "Special Operation and Peace" which he published 1863.

[danfrodo]

36 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

You haven't missed anything as far as I know.  There's a bunch of speculation here scattered back a few pages.

One theory is some form of agreement made in Turkey to let the Russians pull out.  The benefit to Ukraine is they can avoid the costly "backs to the wall" sort of fighting it would take to mop up all the Russian pockets.  Lots more civilians would have died.  The benefit to Russia is, of course, they get out of the pickle they were in.  This theory fits all the facts quite well, so it is credible.

Personally, I think Ukraine would have better off slogging it out in this area, but then again I don't have the same information the Ukrainians do.

Another theory is as soon as Ukraine saw that Russians were withdrawing it immediately started redeploying to other sectors instead of tying up resources around Kiev.  The tradeoff here is letting Russian forces escape but accelerating the redeployment of fresh forces to other sectors.  This too fits the facts.

The last theory is that Ukraine wasn't in a position to immediately prevent a full scale withdrawal and therefore Russia was able to escape.  This also fits the facts, so is credible.

Maybe Russia left more dead and burned out stuff behind than we are counting, but for sure they didn't get pocketed in any significant numbers. 

The Ukrainians may have calculated that being able to relocate all of their efforts over to Donbas quickly was more valuable than the gains from a prolonged fight around Kiev.  Bird in the hand?

The forces that escaped are not in good shape.  It will take time for them to reconstitute and when they do they'll have to attack in a fairly crowded area.  It's unclear how much good they'll be able to do.  More than nothing, for sure, but maybe not all that much.

Steve

I think I am on option 3 here:  Ukraine attacked targets of opportunity that had low risk.  they would not want to jeopardize combat ready forces in any risky attacks of RU units that are already in bad shape and out of business for some time.  And it allows redeployment.  I think UKR did attack retreating forces and did not make a deal with RU.  UKR just decided on cost/benefit/opportunity analysis.  Plus Russians ran away w Monty Python like determination (was in a post some days ago)

[danfrodo]

"Special Operation and Peace".  Professional quality humor

[BletchleyGeek]

40 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

One theory is some form of agreement made in Turkey to let the Russians pull out.  The benefit to Ukraine is they can avoid the costly "backs to the wall" sort of fighting it would take to mop up all the Russian pockets.  Lots more civilians would have died.  The benefit to Russia is, of course, they get out of the pickle they were in.  This theory fits all the facts quite well, so it is credible.

Personally, I think Ukraine would have better off slogging it out in this area, but then again I don't have the same information the Ukrainians do.

Another theory is as soon as Ukraine saw that Russians were withdrawing it immediately started redeploying to other sectors instead of tying up resources around Kiev.  The tradeoff here is letting Russian forces escape but accelerating the redeployment of fresh forces to other sectors.  This too fits the facts.

The last theory is that Ukraine wasn't in a position to immediately prevent a full scale withdrawal and therefore Russia was able to escape.  This also fits the facts, so is credible.

Theory no. 1 reeks of the kind of self promoting BS that Erdogan likes to spread around. My thoughts are on 50-50 on theories no. 2 and 3. Counterstrokes on the supply line of the RF pushing out of Izyum, and Kherson I think are pretty much on the cards. Operations like that require careful husbandry of scarce resources.