How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Kinophile]

Correct; to clarify, I meant once RUS had advanced to wherever south of Izium and starts thinking they need to seal off the kettle.

This is useful:

 

[Battlefront.com]

The next phase of the war (due any day now) is going to be quite different than we've seen thus far.  Ukraine is going to need the ability to reign down massed fire in a fairly small area fairly quickly and on a regular basis sustained for a prolonged period of time.  Sniping an artillery piece here and there with drones or even drone assisted artillery fire isn't going to cut it.

Why is this?  Because the Russians are about do an updated version of Human Wave attack or, to use RTS terminology, a Tank Rush.  At least they will if the Russian command has developed any sense of intelligence. 

Russia is out of subtle options and time.  It likely has just one more chance left to roll up the Ukrainian defenders.  Risking everything, therefore, isn't as dumb as it might seem because risking less than that is probably not going to work and will still result in lots of friendly casualties.

This is the sort of brute force concentration of firepower attack is what all the strategic analysts were expecting Russia to do from the start.  But they had too many objectives and not enough forces for the scope of operations.  That and a battle plan that was based on a fundamentally naive view of how the battle would unfold.

The Russians will likely use their artillery to really hammer the Ukrainian positions, then they will try pushing heavy forces straight through the lines and southward (some say westward to Dnipro, but I don't think so) to crash into the rear of the Ukrainians defending against DLPR forces.  The distance needed to effect significant disruption is relatively short, which denies Ukraine the time it needs to whittle down the attacker with precision attacks.  Ukraine needs to whack the force with a sledge hammer and to keep on hitting it until there's nothing left.

What can Ukraine do against this?

Get nearly every single piece of artillery and AD into the area west of Izium and Slovyansk as it can.  Preferably around the south west of Barvinkove.  Everything would be in range of Russian forces taking the secondary roads (T-21-1 and T-22-2) southward towards Barvinkove and something like Tochka-U would be well within range of M-03 from there, which is the Russians most important route of advance southward.  All the heavier, longer ranged assets need to be able to HAMMER the Izium bridgehead, just south of the builtup areas.

Basically, Ukraine has to designate a roughly triangular area between Izium, Barvinkove, and Slovyansk as a giant kill sack.  Anything that goes it has to die as close to Izium as possible.  Total annihilation needs to be the goal.  Ukraine can afford to overkill this because failing to crush the Russians here risks a huge defeat.

In addition to the artillery every spare regular and TD unit at Ukraine's disposal needs to be arrayed to the west and south of the kill zone.  Whatever doesn't get killed within it needs to run into solid defenses.  Then, eventually, a slow and steady counter attack towards Izium from the west.

No matter who wins, this battle is likely to decide what comes next in a very meaningful way.  If Ukraine wins this decisively, Russia is out of options.  If Ukraine loses it, including significant forces facing off Luhansk, it can still come out OK if it makes Russia pay dearly in equipment and men.

Mind you, either way Russia will lose the war.  This battle won't change the strategic outcome.

Steve

[sross112]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

If given the opportunity....

I am thinking that Rus longship has sailed, excepting despoilment of the unfortunate (heavily Russian speaking) swathe running Kherson to Izium.

Operationally, I am wondering whether the UA "Eighth Route Army" forces can manage to shift and execute a double 'backhand blow' while the rasputitza remains?

1.   Relentless annihilation of Russian forces (VDV) north of the Dniepr, in parallel with liberation (or perhaps isolation) of Kherson and environs, putting the Crimea land bridge to Melitopol under artillery fire.

2.  Envelop and defeat Russian forces in the forming salient around Izium. They will have dug in by now (been looking for imagery to confirm) and doctrinally are still very much tied to their supply hog AFVs (read bunkers / zinc coffins / graves for seven brothers).

Grab the good ground (in these times, that actually means ground the *enemy* values, not you necessarily), then let those battered RA 'reinforcements' from the north feed themselves futilely into the wood chipper as they frantically try to reinforce beleaguered hedgehogs and clear their LOCs. Compel them to keep attacking while they are still off balance and terrible at it, that's the point!

Risky? Bloody? Hell yes, of course, RAF air power is no joke. But taking no risks means accepting the loss of the southern oblasts, spun as another 'genius Putin win'. And a rematch later once the RA has had a chance to reorg and refit....

P.S.  Could Izium be the 'Ukrainian Stalingrad?' After a month, the UA still firmly holds the battered south bank....

FWIW (30 March):  https://theglobalherald.com/news/ukraine-war-ukrainian-troops-in-izium-confident-of-victory/

 

LLF,

The UKA abandoned Izyum south of the river a couple days ago. The RA crossed the river to their south about a week ago and they weren't able to throw them out. After a couple days of fighting and not being able to reduce their bridgehead the defenders were pulled from Izyum. Since then the RA has managed some gains to the south and south west. 

Prior to all this the defenders in Izyum were smashing RA attacks at the southern part of the city on a daily basis. 

[Kinophile]

40 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

 

Mind you, either way Russia will lose the war.  This battle won't change the strategic outcome.

Steve

Not entirely convinced by this.

If Russia wins, Putin has then confirmed his "genius" (internally, quieting an Army dissent) and will bear down further on the war; he'll be convinced of his correctness, the Army wont talk against him and the meat grinder will grind on. He'll try to bleed UKR towards a ceasefire, east of the DLPR, and he'll go through as many human wave attacks as needed to get his "win".

I know Kiev was the original strategic goal, but a ceasefire with Russia still inside Ukraine, even more so, is fundamentally a defeat for Ukraine, as a third invasion can happen as soon as Putler is told its possible.

Any sense of strategic success by Putin is highly dangerous in corroborating his bullying "diplomacy" and encouraging him forward.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Kinophile

[sross112]

37 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The next phase of the war (due any day now) is going to be quite different than we've seen thus far.  Ukraine is going to need the ability to reign down massed fire in a fairly small area fairly quickly and on a regular basis sustained for a prolonged period of time.  Sniping an artillery piece here and there with drones or even drone assisted artillery fire isn't going to cut it.

Why is this?  Because the Russians are about do an updated version of Human Wave attack or, to use RTS terminology, a Tank Rush.  At least they will if the Russian command has developed any sense of intelligence. 

Russia is out of subtle options and time.  It likely has just one more chance left to roll up the Ukrainian defenders.  Risking everything, therefore, isn't as dumb as it might seem because risking less than that is probably not going to work and will still result in lots of friendly casualties.

This is the sort of brute force concentration of firepower attack is what all the strategic analysts were expecting Russia to do from the start.  But they had too many objectives and not enough forces for the scope of operations.  That and a battle plan that was based on a fundamentally naive view of how the battle would unfold.

The Russians will likely use their artillery to really hammer the Ukrainian positions, then they will try pushing heavy forces straight through the lines and southward (some say westward to Dnipro, but I don't think so) to crash into the rear of the Ukrainians defending against DLPR forces.  The distance needed to effect significant disruption is relatively short, which denies Ukraine the time it needs to whittle down the attacker with precision attacks.  Ukraine needs to whack the force with a sledge hammer and to keep on hitting it until there's nothing left.

What can Ukraine do against this?

Get nearly every single piece of artillery and AD into the area west of Izium and Slovyansk as it can.  Preferably around the south west of Barvinkove.  Everything would be in range of Russian forces taking the secondary roads (T-21-1 and T-22-2) southward towards Barvinkove and something like Tochka-U would be well within range of M-03 from there, which is the Russians most important route of advance southward.  All the heavier, longer ranged assets need to be able to HAMMER the Izium bridgehead, just south of the builtup areas.

Basically, Ukraine has to designate a roughly triangular area between Izium, Barvinkove, and Slovyansk as a giant kill sack.  Anything that goes it has to die as close to Izium as possible.  Total annihilation needs to be the goal.  Ukraine can afford to overkill this because failing to crush the Russians here risks a huge defeat.

In addition to the artillery every spare regular and TD unit at Ukraine's disposal needs to be arrayed to the west and south of the kill zone.  Whatever doesn't get killed within it needs to run into solid defenses.  Then, eventually, a slow and steady counter attack towards Izium from the west.

No matter who wins, this battle is likely to decide what comes next in a very meaningful way.  If Ukraine wins this decisively, Russia is out of options.  If Ukraine loses it, including significant forces facing off Luhansk, it can still come out OK if it makes Russia pay dearly in equipment and men.

Mind you, either way Russia will lose the war.  This battle won't change the strategic outcome.

Steve

Isn't the best way to defeat a counter attack out of the Izyum area to defeat their logistics? I believe the only bridges into that area controlled by the RA are pontoons now. Locate and destroy those that puts the pressure on and keeps them from massing enough fast enough to make a viable attempt at breaking out. 

Get all those drone teams down from Kyiv and repeat the process that they did up there. Let the bridgehead be their new meatgrinder but keep it intense enough that they aren't able to rest, refit and rebuild at all, or for that matter stockpile any supplies for a big push. 

On the flip side, do you let them come? Let them build up and break out. Get strung out on the roads and then hit them every step of the way. They have shown a proven inability to conduct operations where they have to think beyond the first step, so maybe let them have the first step and work them hard when they are unable to adapt?

Either plan I think needs a ton of small teams saturating the whole area attriting whatever they can. That has worked really really good so far. The worst option is anything involving massing UA troops under the RA guns. That is probably truly their only strength right now. I think if they are given the opportunity to mass troops and guns on a limited objective they will be able to do some damage, beyond that limited objective they will fall apart.

Also, in the end like it has been talked about before, even if they were able to cut off the Donbas who would truly be surrounded? 

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Not entirely convinced by this.

Fair enough!  My Amazon ordered Crystal Ball has not yet arrived, so I'm not making predictions that can be counted on

7 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

If Russia wins, Putin has then confirmed his "genius" (internally, quieting an Army dissent) and will bear down further on the war; he'll be convinced of his correctness, the Army wont talk against him and the meat grinder will grind on. He'll try to bleed UKR towards a ceasefire, east of the DLPR, and he'll go through as many human wave attacks as needed to get his "win".

I know Kiev was the original strategic goal, but a ceasefire with Russia still inside Ukraine, even more so, is fundamentally a defeat for Ukraine, as a third invasion can happen as soon as Putler is told its possible.

Any sense of strategic success by Putin is highly dangerous in corroborating his bullying "diplomacy".

This isn't really correct.  Putin had 3 major goals in this order:

1.  Subjugate all of Ukraine and make it a slave state to Russia.  This is a HARD FAIL!  So Putin's top goal is absolutely off the table.  Period.

2.  Destroy Ukraine's capacity to resist Russian aggression.  HARD FAIL on this one too.  No matter what happens with this battle there's a couple hundred thousands pissed off and armed Ukrainians that are ready to keep the fight going.

3.  Keep Ukraine neutral.  HARD FAIL here too.  Ukraine was willing to be neutral before this war, but ironically Russia's war took that off the table unless there's guarrantees that Russia can never harm Ukraine again. Which means, effectively, Ukraine is not neutral in any real sense of the word because it is militarily allied with Russia's enemies.

There's lots of subtlety to the specifics of these, as well as some really silly ones (Russian language protection, recognition of DLPR and Crimea, etc.), but it really does boil down to these three points.  None of these are possible for Russia to obtain under any circumstances I can think up, even wildly unlikely ones. 

The attacker gets to set the conditions by which it can claim victory, but the defender can deny them.  Since these are Russia's goals and they can't achieve them, the only conclusion to arrive at is Russia has lost the war.  I've been saying that since Day 5 or so.  Since then I've seen only reinforcement of that conclusion.

 

Now, if that isn't enough to convince you that Russia has lost... ask yourself, what is the point of this war from Russia's long term strategic vision?  No, scratch that.  Let's think of what Russia did NOT want to get out of this war (in no particular order):

1.  Military humiliation that is going to take decades to live down.

2.  Destruction of its military in all tangible ways.

3.  Inability to flex its muscles in any sort of credible way, even against fairly weak opponents.

4.  A ruined economy with absolutely no chance of recovery to prewar levels for decades if the West keeps up sanctions.

5.  Pariah status equivalent to North Korea.  War of aggression, war crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and so on.

6.  Weakened influence in the hinterlands of the Russian Federation, especially its frozen conflicts

7.  Isolation of Kaliningrad from all land routes

8.  Technology and trade embargo for just about everything Russia needs to keep its economy afloat

9.  Increased brain drain

10.  Increased costs for suppressing local discontent

11.  All kinds of counter moves to its years of using money to buy influence

12.  The financial costs to rebuild its military industrial complex around stuff it can afford to make (though I don't know how they will afford to do that!)

13.  Financial losses for war reparations probably no matter what (foreign asset seizures going to Ukraine is likely)

14.  West finally convinced it needs to be done with dependence on Russian fossil fuels

Sheesh... I could go on and and on and on, but you get my point.

There is no way, no how, in any universe connected to the one we live in where Russia comes out of this with what it wanted to when it invaded Ukraine.

Russia lost this war big time no matter what happens in the coming days, weeks, or months.  There is no chance of reversing course.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, sross112 said:

Isn't the best way to defeat a counter attack out of the Izyum area to defeat their logistics? I believe the only bridges into that area controlled by the RA are pontoons now. Locate and destroy those that puts the pressure on and keeps them from massing enough fast enough to make a viable attempt at breaking out. 

Yeah, I should have mentioned that specifically.  It was implied in the whole concept of using artillery to interdict.  Bridges would be an immediate target and likely would get knocked out quickly once the assets were brought into place.

4 minutes ago, sross112 said:

Get all those drone teams down from Kyiv and repeat the process that they did up there. Let the bridgehead be their new meatgrinder but keep it intense enough that they aren't able to rest, refit and rebuild at all, or for that matter stockpile any supplies for a big push. 

Yes, the drones could help a lot here if the artillery isn't able to take out the bridges.  Keep whacking vehicles right in the middle of the crossing and you can block their use.

4 minutes ago, sross112 said:

On the flip side, do you let them come? Let them build up and break out. Get strung out on the roads and then hit them every step of the way. They have shown a proven inability to conduct operations where they have to think beyond the first step, so maybe let them have the first step and work them hard when they are unable to adapt?

The way I see the battle enveloping is that Russia will push too many forces over the bridgehead too quickly and create a target rich environment south of Izium.  This makes massed fire far more effective.

If the Russians do manage to advance out of the bridgehead then distance becomes a bit of a challenge as now there's more area to cover and that means massed fire is less, er, massed.  However, massed fire on choke points along the roads are likely possible.  Natural terrain should make some places harder to maneuver in the event the road is temporarily impassible.

4 minutes ago, sross112 said:

Either plan I think needs a ton of small teams saturating the whole area attriting whatever they can. That has worked really really good so far. The worst option is anything involving massing UA troops under the RA guns. That is probably truly their only strength right now. I think if they are given the opportunity to mass troops and guns on a limited objective they will be able to do some damage, beyond that limited objective they will fall apart.

The problem with Ukraine's successful tactics so far is that the Russians were themselves not concentrated.  Small units could move around and whack stuff without fearing an immediate counter attack and destruction.  If Russia goes ahead with a Tank Rush this will be much harder to do.

However, it is correct that Ukraine must not mass its own ground forces too much.  But eventually it will need to engage, so make sure the artillery (and drones) have scored big successes first and the ground fighting should be much easier.

4 minutes ago, sross112 said:

Also, in the end like it has been talked about before, even if they were able to cut off the Donbas who would truly be surrounded? 

If they get south to the forces north of Mariupol, it is possible that they will be too thin and too spent to withstand counter attacks that in turn cut off the Russians.  Entirely possible.  If I were the Ukrainian leadership I'd like that to be Plan C.  Plan A being slaughter them south of Izium, Plan B slaughter them on the way south.

BTW, after writing my concept of the battle/s to come I saw this:

 

They came up with a bold counter attack south of Kharkiv to cut off the forces fighting in the area we're discussing.  While I think it is a very good idea to put pressure on this area to the extent possible, I'm thinking it's beyond Ukraine's capabilities to make significant gains without excessive losses.  Which means that from a paper standpoint their suggestion is excellent, but the likely low probability of success makes it impractical.

Steve

[Vergeltungswaffe]

I think the RTS Tank Rush could hasten the end of this if Ukraine plays it smart.

The Russians have yet to show that they understand the degree to which they are being observed in everything that they do, so the forces and location won't come as a surprise.

The Ukrainians need to have their arty ready, as Steve mentioned, not give the Tank Rush any real good target and basically let it through, cut it off and rain absolute hell on them.

[sburke]

Every time I think I am getting a bit hardened to the reality of how brutal this war is I see something else that just leaves me gaping.

 

[LukeFF]

7 minutes ago, sburke said:

Every time I think I am getting a bit hardened to the reality of how brutal this war is I see something else that just leaves me gaping.

 

It just kills me seeing stuff like this. My son is but a year older than her. 

[Kinophile]

@Vergeltungswaffe yup, let them out to die  on the ridge lines. If the fight stays lose to Izyum then massed RUS fires can overwatch their defense much more easily.

As mentioned before, it's got be UKR needs to stay on operational defense.

[dan/california]

Good thread from General Hertling

[LongLeftFlank]

7 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Good thread from General Hertling

Nice find.

The RU forces - of various types - have suffered losses beyond comprehension. Some estimates have said 10-15%...I'd put it closer to 30-50% of the front line combat units.

This isn't a computer game, or stratego...those forces do not just leave one area to fight in another.8/

As an old tank Division Commander, those figures are unfathomable to me.

Which brings me to RECONSTITUTION, a doctrinal term describing REORGANIZATION of units (into other units, or combining depleted units together) with REGENERATION of capabilities (due to loss of leadership, men, equipment, supplies).

It's hard, sometimes impossible.  10/

To reconstitute, you need to consider:

1. State of chain of command (leadership)

2. Personnel losses

3. Equipment readiness to reenter the fight

4. Supplies on hand to support the equipment & men

5. Training needs to overcome first fight failures  

RU gets an F in al l.  12/

You can't throw units like these back into the fight and expect different results..... 

Edited April 5, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[Kinophile]

Rough map of flooding in Izyum. (Water is yellow)

https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1511029078853357574?s=20&t=F_5K2_YHdDrVOp6H0cLThQ

[Aragorn2002]

8 hours ago, DesertFox said:

Incredible what kind of bull the russians are producing about Bucha...

 

 

Incredible indeed. Shows who we are dealing with though. And how they hate us.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[The_MonkeyKing]

5 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Rough map of flooding in Izyum. (Water is yellow)

https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1511029078853357574?s=20&t=F_5K2_YHdDrVOp6H0cLThQ

Interesting, seems like Russians broke the dam to have defensive advantage for themselves (and for the Ukrainians). This is going to make the front grind to a halt.

[DesertFox]

Good News for Poland and I guess also for Ukraine, because they then can get the polish T-72s AFAIK in the upgraded form now called PT-91.

Or this is completely unrelated to Poland delivering older T-72s to Ukraine. It is not clear for me yet what exactly will happen except that Ukraine is supposed to get tanks from Poland be that T-72M1s or PT-91s.

Poland: Modified T-72 Main Battle Tanks Handed Off | Defence24.com

 

 

Edited April 5, 2022 by DesertFox

[DesertFox]

 

 

[The_MonkeyKing]

15 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

Good News for Poland and I guess also for Ukraine, because they then can get the polish T-72s AFAIK in the upgraded form now called PT-91.

Or this is completely unrelated to Poland delivering older T-72s to Ukraine. It is not clear for me yet what exactly will happen except that Ukraine is supposed to get tanks from Poland be that T-72M1s or PT-91s.

Poland: Modified T-72 Main Battle Tanks Handed Off | Defence24.com

 

 

I cannot see any confirmation of PT-91 or any actively maintained tanks being send from Poland. This would be Poland giving up significant part of their own military force. It is going to take years until the new Abrams are operational and have replaced the PT-91 in service.

Poland has hundreds of older T-72 mothballed. These are the ones (maybe) being send to Ukraine.

[Fenris]

I hope they get there in time to make a difference (edit - the switchblades I mean)

Edited April 5, 2022 by Fenris

[DesertFox]

 

 

[DesertFox]

 

Is Putin’s war turning genocidal? | Peter Caddick–Adams | The Critic Magazine

Edited April 5, 2022 by DesertFox

[The_MonkeyKing]

1 minute ago, DesertFox said:

 

 

Yes, this is exactly that I expect being send. Old ass mothballed close to baseline T-72.

Czech have upgraded somewhat modern ones and these mothballed T-72M1 in the pictures. (<100pcs.)

[DesertFox]

10 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

I cannot see any confirmation of PT-91 or any actively maintained tanks being send from Poland. This would be Poland giving up significant part of their own military force. It is going to take years until the new Abrams are operational and have replaced the PT-91 in service.

Poland has hundreds of older T-72 mothballed. These are the ones (maybe) being send to Ukraine.

I admit I am not very deep into the details of polish armor, but yes, makes more sense to keep the TI-capable PT-91s for poland and send mothballed T-72M1s to Ukraine.

[Lethaface]

7 hours ago, JonS said:

I'm kinda surprised that this hasn't been referred to anywhere

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=3376730ECD9DF7B1C12563CD0051DD37

(Russian Federation inherited ratification from USSR, and went further by revoking declaration made by USSR at time of ratification)

IIRC it was in news here after the initial fighting for the complex around Tjernobyl occurred. The gist of it was that attacking the installation is a warcrime, but that's void if there are forces defending the installation. And it seemed there were some troops defending it.