How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Taranis]

Quote

Moscou dit avoir abattu deux hélicoptères venus à Marioupol pour évacuer des chefs du bataillon Azov
L’armée russe a affirmé, mardi, avoir abattu deux hélicoptères ukrainiens cherchant à évacuer des chefs d’un bataillon nationaliste défendant le port assiégé de Marioupol, appelant, une nouvelle fois, ces défenseurs à déposer les armes.

« Ce matin, 5 avril, autour de Marioupol, une nouvelle tentative du régime de Kiev pour évacuer des chefs du bataillon nationaliste Azov a été avortée. Deux hélicoptères ukrainiens Mi-8, essayant d’atteindre la ville depuis la mer, ont été abattus par des systèmes antiaériens portatifs », a fait savoir le porte-parole du ministère de la défense, Igor Konachenkov.

Ce dernier a également assuré que Moscou avait proposé, mardi matin, aux combattants ukrainiens de déposer les armes et de quitter la ville « via un itinéraire convenu » vers le territoire sous contrôle de Kiev. Selon lui, l’armée ukrainienne a toutefois « ignoré » cette proposition. « Etant donné que Kiev n’est pas intéressé par la possibilité de sauver la vie de ses militaires, Marioupol va être libéré des nationalistes », a ajouté M. Konachenkov.

La semaine dernière, il avait déjà assuré que l’armée russe avait abattu au-dessus de la mer d’Azov un hélicoptère ukrainien venu évacuer des commandants du bataillon Azov, qui défend, depuis des semaines, Marioupol.

Il n’y avait pas, mardi soir, d’images de cette destruction sur les réseaux sociaux et Kiev n’avait pas réagi.

Moscow says it shot down two helicopters that came to Mariupol to evacuate Azov battalion leaders
The Russian army said on Tuesday that it had shot down two Ukrainian helicopters seeking to evacuate leaders of a nationalist battalion defending the besieged port of Mariupol, once again calling on these defenders to lay down their arms.

“This morning, April 5, around Mariupol, a new attempt by the kyiv regime to evacuate leaders of the nationalist Azov battalion was aborted. Two Ukrainian Mi-8 helicopters, trying to reach the city from the sea, were shot down by man-portable anti-aircraft systems,” Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said.

The latter also assured that Moscow had offered, on Tuesday morning, to Ukrainian fighters to lay down their arms and leave the city “via an agreed route” towards the territory under kyiv control. According to him, the Ukrainian army, however, “ignored” this proposal. “Since Kyiv is not interested in the possibility of saving the lives of its servicemen, Mariupol is going to be freed from nationalists,” Konashenkov added.

Last week, he had already assured that the Russian army had shot down over the Sea of Azov a Ukrainian helicopter that had come to evacuate commanders of the Azov battalion, which has been defending Mariupol for weeks.

There were no images of this destruction on social networks on Tuesday evening and kyiv had not reacted.

 

source : Le Monde

[danfrodo]

I think it's pretty clear that the massacres of civilians in Ukraine are a tipping point in how people around the world are viewing things.  Last night my wife said two things I could never imagine her saying:

"he needs to die.  someone needs to kill him" (putin)

"why can't we send the american army to kill them?" (meaning kill the russian army

Strange times indeed.

[sburke]

18 minutes ago, dan/california said:

 

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1511417219674161158.html

 

Trent making a great deal of sense about the railway lines in the Donbas being very important to the next phase of the war.

posted this earlier today

Behind the Front Lines, Russia’s Military Struggles to Supply Its Forces - WSJ

Here is the gist of it

Quote

 

While fuel consumption will depend on speed and terrain, tanks are huge gas guzzlers. Mr. Boston says that, as a rough estimate, a T-72B variant tank—the workhorses in Ukraine—would use 5.8 gallons per hour just to idle, and 1 mile a gallon or significantly less when moving.

Two elite regiments appear to have been particularly plagued by breakdowns.

Mr. Boston said the 12th and 13th tank regiments, both part of the Fourth Tank Division and the only formations using T80U tanks, suffered heavy losses in the campaign as they moved westward from the Russian border.

More than 40 of the units’ tanks were abandoned or captured undamaged, according to reports verified by the Oryx website. These tanks have powerful gas-turbine engines but there is a major downside—very heavy fuel consumption.

“It’s like a full third of those vehicles in those two regiments may have just run out of gas,” Mr. Boston said.

After its first lightning strike failed, Russia switched to one of its old standbys: using artillery. Most Russian artillery strikes use unguided weapons that can extract a huge human toll when attacking cities—without necessarily achieving any useful strategic objective.

They also create an onerous demand on logistics. Artillery ammunition is enormously heavy and some big Russian systems can consume tons of it rapidly. A rocket launcher such as the self-propelled BM-27 Uragan can fire its 16 barrels in minutes. “To refuel it, you basically require a lorry just as big to carry the same number of rockets,” said Mr. Barry.

Even a shell for a 152 mm howitzer weighs about 100 pounds. Each gun will carry about 50 rounds, and a brigade several thousand, Mr. Boston said.

He said the Russian military gives priority to logistics bringing ammunition to artillery units. “The demand for bringing the artillery in means you now have a competing demand for logistics. They’re obviously not the same trucks as the fuel trucks but you obviously have to get it there,” Mr. Boston said.

The Russian reliance on unguided munitions is cheaper—but piles pressure on logistics. “They might need to fire 60 rounds to get the same effect as we do from one [precision] round…Obviously that gets very difficult from the sustainment perspective,” he said.

“It’s also profoundly unsafe. You hit a Russian vehicle full of ammo, it will just explode.”

Mr. Michel of IISS said the Ukrainians shouldn’t assume the Russians won’t adapt in the face of their logistical struggles. “The Russian armed forces are usually good at learning lessons,” he said.

 

While hitting the rail lines has some potential, I'd (in my oh so ignorant view of how things probably really work) would consider targeting further north.  The Donbas front is heavily defended and fortified.  The Northern axis out of Izyum is not. The main road from Belgorod to Izyum passes through Vovchans'k in Ukraine 36 miles from downtown Kharkov.  I'd be running switchblades there on a regular basis with other drones monitoring the highway to give warning of supply convoy movements. Even if you just deter them you are now forcing more wear and tear as well as fuel consumption on the supply columns as well as complicating traffic movement.

All that is assuming you have to choose between the two.  If not... have at em on both sides.

 

[womble]

29 minutes ago, sburke said:

hitting the rail lines has some potential

Kill a train on the line, and the line is blocked until specialist heavy lifting gear gets there, at least as far as the aftermath of civilian trainwrecks seems to show. Maybe you can use heavy military things to drag a loco and all the jacknifed rolling stock out of the way, if the pileup is on flat ground, but if it's in a cutting, you're probably SOL. A switchblade into the driver's front window would probably do it. Even a little one, if you pick your spot.

[sburke]

Just now, womble said:

Kill a train on the line, and the line is blocked until specialist heavy lifting gear gets there, at least as far as the aftermath of civilian trainwrecks seems to show. Maybe you can use heavy military things to drag a loco and all the jacknifed rolling stock out of the way, if the pileup is on flat ground, but if it's in a cutting, you're probably SOL. A switchblade into the driver's front window would probably do it. Even a little one, if you pick your spot.

Understood. More a question as to where the ammo dumps and railheads are.  The drone has a 50 mile range.  I don't know where the frontline is and where the railheads would be.  It is a good idea assuming that it is within range of the drone. I couldn't tell from that article any of those factors.

[DesertFox]

9 minutes ago, womble said:

Kill a train on the line, and the line is blocked until specialist heavy lifting gear gets there, at least as far as the aftermath of civilian trainwrecks seems to show. Maybe you can use heavy military things to drag a loco and all the jacknifed rolling stock out of the way, if the pileup is on flat ground, but if it's in a cutting, you're probably SOL. A switchblade into the driver's front window would probably do it. Even a little one, if you pick your spot.

Yep, and 24 hours later sent another drone or switchblade to take out the crane. Eventually they will run out of cranes and the raillines are blocked for logistics. When they start transporting their stuff by road, do the same. Sooner or later well you get the idea...

[sross112]

From today's ISW report, south of Izyum:

Russian offensive operations southeast from Izyum toward Slovyansk continued on a small scale and made limited progress.  Russia has not yet attempted to mass large concentrations of forces on this axis but continues instead to send individual battalion tactical groups to advance on their own.

That is perfect for the UA defense if they are committing piecemeal out of the Izyum salient. 

[TheVulture]

India has previously declined to criticise Russia over its invasion of Ukraine, but today has condemned the killing of civilians in Bucha and called for an independent investigation. If you are being more cautious you might note that it hasn't actually gone as far as blaming Russia for the killings, so this probably means less than some people are reading in to it.

 

 

[Kraft]

You'd think the russian communities in countries that dont lock them up for wrongthink would in-large speak up against Putin - but so far, just this display of the finest & brightest:

 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Kraft

[sburke]

1 minute ago, Kraft said:

You'd think the russian communities in countries that dont lock them up for wrongthink would speak up against Putin - but so far, no russian anti war demonstrations, just this display of the finest & brightest:

 

we actually have had Russians here speaking up.  Doing joint events against the war with local Ukrainian student and community groups.

[Fenris]

3 hours ago, womble said:

Well, to be mundane for a second, some tractor obviously happened by and dragged the hull off for scrap and left the turret, because their friend the backhoe was off salvaging some other wreck... but that aside:

Holy heck! How high did that turret have to be blown to bury itself that deep in tarmac?!! 

Perhaps it's been run over by something heavy.  Although there's no obvious tread marks on the asphalt so maybe it did flop down from a great height.  Crazy.

[Battlefront.com]

More on the pro-Russian demonstration in Berlin.  I think they should all be deported to Russia.  A child who treated their parent like that would certainly be sent to their room without supper.

 

[danfrodo]

7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

More on the pro-Russian demonstration in Berlin.  I think they should all be deported to Russia.  A child who treated their parent like that would certainly be sent to their room without supper.

 

Yes, perhaps they should leave the evil decadent west and return to the land of freedom and prosperity from whence they came.  That is really messed up. 

[sburke]

19 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Yes, perhaps they should leave the evil decadent west and return to the land of freedom and prosperity from whence they came.  That is really messed up. 

Hey, Russia is talking about revoking that idiot Depardieu's passport because he dared criticize Putin.  Sounds like a fair trade. Then they can send these guys down to the Donbas.  Welcome home boys, grab a gun when the guy in front of you dies.

[Fenris]

[AlsatianFelix]

Spitballing this, but the hourglass is running on Russian tanks. Rough figures

450 MBTs lost in one month (Oryx, rounding up from 425 to account for his chronic back log)
12,000 Russian MBTs in stock at start (widely claimed; multiple sites)
Straight line losses:  Russia runs out of tanks in 26 months.

Of course, losses won't be straight line and Russia can produce new tanks, can't they?

But Ukraine has something to add:

36 MBTs lost in one month (Oryx)
100 MBTs captured from Russia (Oryx says 176, but let's estimate down for operability)
Let's call it a net increase of 65 tanks
2,500 Ukrainian MBT's in stock at start (multiple sites)

What I'm trying to say, is that at current rates, Ukraine has more tanks than Russia somewhere about 18 months from now.

Holes in my numbers big enough to drive a truck through, I'm sure. Have at it. I'm just a dummy with a two column spreadsheet.

[danfrodo]

32 minutes ago, sburke said:

Hey, Russia is talking about revoking that idiot Depardieu's passport because he dared criticize Putin.  Sounds like a fair trade. Then they can send these guys down to the Donbas.  Welcome home boys, grab a gun when the guy in front of you dies.

how does russia revoke french idiot's passport?  Is idiot hiding out in russia for some nefarious past behavior? 

[Harmon Rabb]

2 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

how does russia revoke french idiot's passport?  Is idiot hiding out in russia for some nefarious past behavior? 

Depardieu moved to Russia so he could avoid paying taxes in France.

[danfrodo]

5 minutes ago, Harmon Rabb said:

Depardieu moved to Russia so he could avoid paying taxes in France.

I don't want to distract the thread too much, but that is really f-ing rich.  And now he might get to stay there, forever.  And the russian state will probably take all his money while they're at it (they need the money).  That is some beautiful natural consequences if it all plays out.

[billbindc]

 

A friend says it reminded her father (who group up in the heyday of the USSR) of this youth. Not in a good way.

[sburke]

35 minutes ago, AlsatianFelix said:

Spitballing this, but the hourglass is running on Russian tanks. Rough figures

450 MBTs lost in one month (Oryx, rounding up from 425 to account for his chronic back log)
12,000 Russian MBTs in stock at start (widely claimed; multiple sites)
Straight line losses:  Russia runs out of tanks in 26 months.

Of course, losses won't be straight line and Russia can produce new tanks, can't they?

But Ukraine has something to add:

36 MBTs lost in one month (Oryx)
100 MBTs captured from Russia (Oryx says 176, but let's estimate down for operability)
Let's call it a net increase of 65 tanks
2,500 Ukrainian MBT's in stock at start (multiple sites)

What I'm trying to say, is that at current rates, Ukraine has more tanks than Russia somewhere about 18 months from now.

Holes in my numbers big enough to drive a truck through, I'm sure. Have at it. I'm just a dummy with a two column spreadsheet.

well from the info that caused that Regimental commander to commit suicide you may have to round down that Russian stock quite a bit.  That is if you want to count functional tanks versus scrap metal.  The reserve is apparently in really bad shape.

[Kraft]

I think the question is not when russia will run out of working tanks but rather when it will run out of skilled and willing crewmen to put in their tanks without calling for mobilization.

I have not been trained on a tank so I do not know how long that process is, but I can imagine it being more than a month for fresh conscripts.

They may be able to fill the gaps for the big parade coming up though

[rocketman]

5 minutes ago, sburke said:

well from the info that caused that Regimental commander to commit suicide you may have to round down that Russian stock quite a bit.  That is if you want to count functional tanks versus scrap metal.  The reserve is apparently in really bad shape.

My question is not as much ”how many tanks do they still have”, but rather ”how many well-trained tank crews worth their salt do they have in reserve”? Probable answer: crap tanks and crap crews.

edit: ninj’ad by Kraft 

Edited April 5, 2022 by rocketman

[BeondTheGrave]

55 minutes ago, rocketman said:

My question is not as much ”how many tanks do they still have”, but rather ”how many well-trained tank crews worth their salt do they have in reserve”? Probable answer: crap tanks and crap crews.

edit: ninj’ad by Kraft 

As always, this is the more important figure. Russia has proven yet again, among so many other things, that conscripts dont cut it in modern war. You need professional full timers, four year volunteers minimum and probably even thats too short. Thats true for Infantry who one day may need to plan an NLAW ambush, the next guide in a TB-2 strike, and the day after fight some high intensity MOUT. And its true of tankers who have to be able to deal with enemy tanks accurate @ 3000m as well as they deal with MOUT and fight with (and against) dismounts. And thats bear minimum. If you were planning to do this war over again, you would probably want to also integrate drones at a very low level into your tank platoon. Which means minimum Platoon Commanders also have to learn this. 

Were well past the days where wars are won by how many tanks you have in storage or how many you can churn out per month. The limiting factor isn't metal but meat. Each person in the army needs to be an expert at their job, from the lowly infantry ground pounder to the tanker to the SAM site operator, even the officers. And you can only get those soldiers one of two ways. First is combat experience, which is the ultimate teacher. Of course this doesn't work as well when your units are collapsing into combat infectivity rather than getting seasoned. Like a poorly tempered piece of steel which shatters rather then bends. Or you do it by training and peacetime work. Ukraine has had the benefit since 2014 of both. Low intensity static combat in the LOC to season troops and test ideas, plus western aid (even if limited) and plenty of opportunity to test out new technologies and concepts. It will take Russia years to make the leap up to this doctrinal level, trying to do so in combat with fresh batches of conscripts? Totally impossible.

Calling up reserve tanks and un/poorly trained crews will simply be calling up more fertilizer for the fields. 

[c3k]

3 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

As always, this is the more important figure. Russia has proven yet again, among so many other things, that conscripts dont cut it in modern war. You need professional full timers, four year volunteers minimum and probably even thats too short. Thats true for Infantry who one day may need to plan an NLAW ambush, the next guide in a TB-2 strike, and the day after fight some high intensity MOUT. And its true of tankers who have to be able to deal with enemy tanks accurate @ 3000m as well as they deal with MOUT and fight with (and against) dismounts. And thats bear minimum. If you were planning to do this war over again, you would probably want to also integrate drones at a very low level into your tank platoon. Which means minimum Platoon Commanders also have to learn this. 

Were well past the days where wars are won by how many tanks you have in storage or how many you can churn out per month. The limiting factor isn't metal but meat. Each person in the army needs to be an expert at their job, from the lowly infantry ground pounder to the tanker to the SAM site operator, even the officers. And you can only get those soldiers one of two ways. First is combat experience, which is the ultimate teacher. Of course this doesn't work as well when your units are collapsing into combat infectivity rather than getting seasoned. Like a poorly tempered piece of steel which shatters rather then bends. Or you do it by training and peacetime work. Ukraine has had the benefit since 2014 of both. Low intensity static combat in the LOC to season troops and test ideas, plus western aid (even if limited) and plenty of opportunity to test out new technologies and concepts. It will take Russia years to make the leap up to this doctrinal level, trying to do so in combat with fresh batches of conscripts? Totally impossible.

Calling up reserve tanks and un/poorly trained crews will simply be calling up more fertilizer for the fields. 

All very true.

It is VERY expensive to maintain an armed force at the levels that, say, the US does. In fact...no one else does. Look at Europe: tank fleets (of tanks equal to or better than the Abrams) number ~200 per country. The US has an active duty fleet of several thousand Abrams.

And, as pointed out, it's not the metal, it's the meat. It takes a year (at most) to produce a modern weapon system. A new private? At least 18 years.  After that, it takes about 4 years to get him proficient. Then, the cost to KEEP him proficient is equal to that initial cost. And that is a recurrent cost, year after year.

It is MUCH cheaper to train some conscripts, mandate a year (or two, depending on Putin's mood and the Duma's feelings), then cycle 90+% out, only keeping a few. 

The whole Red Flag concept of training is being borne out in real time in the Steppes. The motivated, trained, military outperforms the larger, better equipped one that has poor morale and poor training.

When you see the cost in blood, material, and national prestige that occurs on the battlefield when untried and poorly trained troops undergo combat, then those re-enlistment retention bonuses look pretty cheap when running defense budgets.