How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[sross112]

Technical question for the smart ATGM people here. From earlier posts a couple hundred pages ago there was talk of being able to remote fire the Javelin. Looking around online I can't find a couple things I'm curious about:

1. How far can the CLU be from the missile during remote launch?

2. What kind of effective arc is there for the missile? Once launched how much can it deviate from it's initial facing?

3. How is the CLU paired to the launcher? Blue tooth or something? Could you pair it to multiple launchers in sequence one after the other?

Kind of wondering how dangerous a guy in a church steeple with a CLU could be. Kind of like a tank sniper I suppose.

 

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

 

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

Future sunflower fertilizer...

 

[Fenris]

One of the first Aussie Bushmasters starting the long trip to UKR - I believe we're going to be airlifting 4 at a time to start with. Not sure how many will be sent, I read a comment saying 50 but IDK if that's true.  I wonder if they'll be changed over to left hand drive

Edited April 6, 2022 by Fenris

[danfrodo]

10 minutes ago, Fenris said:

One of the first Aussie Bushmasters starting the long trip to UKR - I believe we're going to be airlifting 4 at a time to start with. Not sure how many will be sent, I read a comment saying 50 but IDK if that's true.  I wonder if they'll be changed over to left hand drive

what's that thing bottom middle of the vehicle?  looks like some kind of roller contraption?

So these are primarily for recon/battle taxi?  I should google instead of asking, but wondering how aussies see them being used?

[Jace11]

6 hours ago, akd said:

Heh, they let a bunch of trucks and APCs pass because they are too “cheap” for the Stugna-P, then kill the TOS-1A.

Lots of Stugna footage about. It lends itself to video footage better than the other systems. Can film the control unit from behind cover etc. Cant do that with most other systems, where the operator has to be exposed. Feel like remote guidance units have some nice advantages. There was some footage today of a Stugna taking down a Ka-50 as it hovered above a tree line.

[danfrodo]

I guess if I were in the business of shooting ATGMs at russians, I'd rather be in this bushmaster than an SUV.  The height is an issue but might also be kind of a handy platform for firing a javelin from the roof, jumping back in and speeding away before the missile even hit or at least before those nasty 30mm autocannons could find you.

[Battlefront.com]

The standard way of training a soldier (including Russia) is to put everybody through Basic Training.  This is the sort of stuff that takes a civilian and gets him/her acclimated to being a soldier.  This time varies by country and can be trimmed down when there's a crisis situation.  The West has figured that a minimum time in boot is roughly 2 months before being ready to learn anything significant.  Reducing the basic training means the soldier goes into their specialty (including boring old infantry stuff!) without a firm base to build on.   Hence the term BASIC training

As for training a tank crew, it's actually pretty easy to teach someone to drive one.  Probably not too much harder to fire the cannon.  After that, things get very hard

The two most important things for a tank crew is their ability to function together effectively and the other is to operate all aspects of the tank with the same proficiency as getting dressed in the morning.  This is NOT something that can be rushed.  It takes time and lots of practical hands on experience.

And this is just to have the tank be technically functional!  Then there's a whole lot of training to get a tank crew to be able to do anything besides drive down a road and shoot shells.  Tactics don't teach themselves, so once again more time and the need for practical experience (at least to get good at it).

I think one could take 3 fresh conscripts and in a month be able to have them reliably drive a tank and fire the gun.  They wouldn't be able to drive in most terrain in most conditions, certainly at night, and they wouldn't likely hit the broad side of a barn at anything other than point blank range, but they could at least physically move a tank and pop a chunk of metal out of the gun barrel.

If Russia is out of tank crews now, then I'd say 1 month minimum before the can get a new tank with new crew into the battle.  And then 5 minutes later need another tank crew and another tank to replace the one lost by driving off a bridge, getting killed by the enemy, panicking and leaving the tank behind, or any number of "rookie mistakes".

To summarize... if Russia has this sort of manpower shortage, the war is likely going to be over before they have even cannon fodder ready, not to mention one cut above it.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, sross112 said:

Technical question for the smart ATGM people here. From earlier posts a couple hundred pages ago there was talk of being able to remote fire the Javelin. Looking around online I can't find a couple things I'm curious about:

1. How far can the CLU be from the missile during remote launch?

2. What kind of effective arc is there for the missile? Once launched how much can it deviate from it's initial facing?

3. How is the CLU paired to the launcher? Blue tooth or something? Could you pair it to multiple launchers in sequence one after the other?

Kind of wondering how dangerous a guy in a church steeple with a CLU could be. Kind of like a tank sniper I suppose.

 

I might be out of date with experiments, but the CLU must be attached to the missile and there is no remote control for the CLU like the Stugna-P has.

What might be circulating around is perhaps confusion about the Javelin being used "remotely" on a vehicle.  The Javelin is currently capable of being mounted on such things as the CROWS-J (J = Javelin) RWS.  This is a modified version of the RWS found on Strykers and quite a few other vehicles.  The Javelin is controlled through the RWS' fire control system, which ultimately is controlled by the operator sitting under armor beneath it.  Therefore, it is controlled "remotely" when used this way.

Steve

[Fenris]

29 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

what's that thing bottom middle of the vehicle?  looks like some kind of roller contraption?

So these are primarily for recon/battle taxi?  I should google instead of asking, but wondering how aussies see them being used?

It's designed to give high mobility in difficult terrain for up to 10 infantry and provide protection from small arms and mines/IEDs.  The thing in the middle is a big winch that can be used to the front or rear.

[Machor]

11 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Putin is in the difficult position of having to defend against anybody who disagrees with his leadership.  Pro-democracy types as well as hardline nationalists who think he's screwed up a good thing.  The problem for Putin is he REQUIRES the support of the hardline nationalists. 

Any loss of support from the hardline nationalist groups will have an impact on his security apparatus because they form the core of its leadership and probably low level staffing.  The degree of impact would be proportional to the level of dissatisfaction and who specifically starts to think Russia might be better off with a new dictator.

New video of Igor Girkin - he seems to be reading Steve's posts: 
"Without mobilization, including mobilization of the economy, the Russian Federation will not be able to win this war. No way. But Ukraine can, because it has mobilized, and will be receiving weapons without a limit. And when they fully mobilize, they will have a half-million strong army, and what will our group be able to do to that even with additional professional soldiers and volunteers? We will be able to add at most several ten thousand troops, which we will still have to train, because soldiers lose their combat and weapon skills without practice. In this respect, the mobilization in Donbas serves as a good example, where they sent to the line people who did not know how to load their automatic rifles, on top of which they gave them bolt-action rifles. And even if some agreements are signed, if we do not mobilize, we should expect an invasion of Russian territory. And believe me it will happen. Therefore, we cannot count on Europe. And we cannot count on China; China can help if we stand strong and fight hard. However, China obviously will not be holding up our generals' pants who, as we have seen, totally do not know how to fight, and those of our government, which cannot say in strong terms what it wants from this war. We're on our own."

Interesting - and ironic - that Girkin is thinking along the lines of Chiang Kai-shek when he committed his best troops to the Battle of Shanghai to show potential allies the Chinese Nationalists' will to fight.

 

[sburke]

14 minutes ago, Machor said:

 And even if some agreements are signed, if we do not mobilize, we should expect an invasion of Russian territory. And believe me it will happen.

This is the one part he gets wrong.  Russia's problem won't be external.  They will be internal.  Who would want to invade that dump anyway?

[Kinophile]

@Machor, I remember that @The_Capt mentioned a while back about the War of 1812 as a historical echo/call back to this war.

It got me curious, as I'm a 1812 "fan" myself and I didn't quite buy his inference.

However, if one looks at the Russo-Japanese War, there start to be a lot of parallels, not least due to the death knell it rang for the autocratic Romanov regime...

[danfrodo]

I am thinking Ukraine might want to make an incursion onto Russian soil if there's something valuable they can seize right on the border.  They might need leverage.  Would it be a big propaganda win for Putin on some level?  Maybe, but at this point, why care?  The Russian people are in an information fantasy world already.

[Battlefront.com]

Interview with Zelensky gives a little more detail about negotiations for occupied Donbas and Crimea.  Basically, it's not worth dying over if the war would otherwise come to an end.  Deal with these as part of negotiations with an eye towards getting them back to Ukraine eventually.  With Donbas it seems like the timeframe aimed at is much shorter than Crimea:

https://censor-net.translate.goog/ua/news/3331541/zelenskyyi_vidkydaye_sylovyyi_stsenariyi_povernennya_donbasu_ta_krymu_tse_koshtuvatyme_tysyach_lyudskyh?_x_tr_sl=uk&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Steve

[Kinophile]

That land corridor cannot be left in place.

[Battlefront.com]

33 minutes ago, Machor said:

New video of Igor Girkin - he seems to be reading Steve's posts: 

Heh.  I've actually been using Girkin as a sort of gauge for how the hardcore nationalists within Russia are viewing the war.  He's been critical since the start and has only gotten more critical.  Thanks very much for the translation of his latest videos.

Everybody should think about this.  Girkin is openly critical of Putin and his generals.  He is saying they are going to lose the war unless they fully mobilize.  He is even saying Ukraine will invade Russian territory (by that I assume he means Crimea and the occupied Donbas).  He's pointing out really uncomfortable truths about Russia's capacity to wage war, including mentioning the bolt action rifles in Donbas.  And he's saying that they have no allies to count on, not even China.

And yet Girkin has not been arrested or killed.

Either Putin thinks there is some sort of value in being trashed talked by Girkin or he fears taking action against Girkin and his ilk would make things worse.  The third option I can think of certainly doesn't apply, which is that Putin doesn't view this sort of criticism as a threat.  Since I can't think of any reason Putin can view Girkin's comments positively, then I think the obvious conclusion is that Putin is afraid to take action against Girkin.  If I'm correct, that tells us a lot.

Steve

[dan/california]

My two cents on the final peace deal, probably worth less than that. Crimea and the Russian occupied Donbas have a far  greater affinity to Russia than the rest of Ukraine, and that was before they had their brains poisoned by a ~decade of Putin's propaganda. I would give Putin Crimea and the Donbas to Putin for a signed treaty that gave Russian assent to joining the EU, and NATO. Ukraine would be both much safer, and much easier to govern.

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

That land corridor cannot be left in place.

Zelensky has explicitly stated that they are demanding the removal of all Russian forces to the pre-February borders.  That means Russia won't be keeping its land bridge under any negotiated peace with Russia.

Steve

[Kinophile]

Yes, he's "demanding" and it will be a primary condition, yes; but Putin will ignore demands. He won't give that corridor back.

My point is the land corridor will need to be taken, or cut, by force and force alone before "real" negotiations.  Then it's Putin doing the demanding and Zelensky the ignoring.

Putler only responds to and respects force, not verbal demands.

Edited April 6, 2022 by Kinophile

[sross112]

2 minutes ago, dan/california said:

My two cents on the final peace deal, probably worth less than that. Crimea and the Russian occupied Donbas have a far  greater affinity to Russia than the rest of Ukraine, and that was before they had their brains poisoned by a ~decade of Putin's propaganda. I would give Putin Crimea and the Donbas to Putin for a signed treaty that gave Russian assent to joining the EU, and NATO. Ukraine would be both much safer, and much easier to govern.

Most of us don't live in those areas, so do we know if they really want to be part of Russia or not. If only 10% do but backed by the little green men they gained power, what about the rest? I think any ceasefire should definitely be all RA back to the pre invasion border. Then a further stipulation of free, fair and heavily monitored voting by the people of Donbas and Crimea as to which country they want to be part of. UN enforces their choice. Of course there are free bus tickets to anyone that wants to go to Russia after the vote tally is in.  

[sross112]

1 minute ago, Kinophile said:

Yes, he's "demanding" and it will be a primary condition, yes; but Putin will ignore demands. He won't give that corridor back.

My point is the land corridor will need to be taken, or cut, by force and force alone before "real" negotiations.  Then it's Putin doing the demanding and Zelensky the ignoring.

Putler only responds to and respects force, not verbal demands.

I agree, the RA will need to be physically removed. If the UA is successful in pushing them back to the start lines that would be a great time for the UN to step in and make a DMZ along the border. Might actually be possible with the negative world opinion after all the RA atrocities coming to light.

[Kinophile]

The tricky thing with "taking" the Donetsk & Luhansk is they are both very large cities, have been militarized over the last years, are run by brutal and heavily RUS supported regimes and have been heavily propagandized and are very close to the RUS border.

So they would be very hard nuts to crack, against which I highly doubt the UA will want to waste vital manpower and gear. And in-turn or even double sieges would be very draining of UKR public patience and combat assets.

They only way they'll fall is with a catastrophic, cascading collapse of the Russian invasion. This is certainly a possibility, given current performance and stressors, but I personally doubt is a probability.

Even a definitive UKR defeat in the Kharkiv/Donetsk/Dnipro AO would be unlikely to cause the cities to fall or surrender.

Edited April 6, 2022 by Kinophile

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Yes, he's "demanding" and it will be a primary condition, yes; but Putin will ignore demands. He won't give that corridor back.

My point is the land corridor will need to be taken, or cut, by force and force alone before "real" negotiations.  Then it's Putin doing the demanding and Zelensky the ignoring.

Putler only responds to and respects force, not verbal demands.

Not correct.  Putin only responds to force up to the point when he thinks it's in his best interests to compromise.  I mean, you seriously don't think that Putin gave back 1/3 of what he captured from Ukraine because he wanted to, right?  He gave it up because he felt he had to.  We'll either see more of this or we'll see less of Putin.  Either way, the land corridor is going to pass back to Ukrainian control and I personally don't think Ukraine will have to fight for it.

Steve

[danfrodo]

8 minutes ago, sross112 said:

Most of us don't live in those areas, so do we know if they really want to be part of Russia or not. If only 10% do but backed by the little green men they gained power, what about the rest? I think any ceasefire should definitely be all RA back to the pre invasion border. Then a further stipulation of free, fair and heavily monitored voting by the people of Donbas and Crimea as to which country they want to be part of. UN enforces their choice. Of course there are free bus tickets to anyone that wants to go to Russia after the vote tally is in.  

I wonder if 8 years of Russian gov't might make Ukraine look a little better than it did back in 2014. 

[dan/california]

7 minutes ago, sross112 said:

Most of us don't live in those areas, so do we know if they really want to be part of Russia or not. If only 10% do but backed by the little green men they gained power, what about the rest? I think any ceasefire should definitely be all RA back to the pre invasion border. Then a further stipulation of free, fair and heavily monitored voting by the people of Donbas and Crimea as to which country they want to be part of. UN enforces their choice. Of course there are free bus tickets to anyone that wants to go to Russia after the vote tally is in.  

You can make at least some inferences about the Donbas and Crimea from how they voted in Ukrainian elections pre 2014. They voted heavily for pro Kremlin stooges. They voted for the corrupt idiot that was run out of town by the Maidan protest in an at least sort of fair election. So my basic assumption is that a decade of the Russian equivalent Fox news being the only thing on TV hasn't improved things.