How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[sburke]

Just now, Battlefront.com said:

On the plus side for Russia, once they blow the bridges that means Ukraine isn't able to cross either.  Both sides would likely put up screening forces along the banks and divert attention to the southern line running from the river to Donetsk.

Steve

That is assuming the Russia's can't fk up blowing the bridges too

[Huba]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

My guess is Russia has all bridges over the river ready to blow.  Once they feel Kherson is not defendable they will attempt to withdraw all of their forces on the western side of the river north of Kherson, then do a fighting withdrawal to the bridge, cross over, and blow 'em.

Once the bridges are blown this is pretty much the end of Russia's fantasy of moving westward.  It doesn't have the ability to bridge the river in any sustainable way.

On the plus side for Russia, once they blow the bridges that means Ukraine isn't able to cross either.  Both sides would likely put up screening forces along the banks and divert attention to the southern line running from the river to Donetsk.

How do you propose they could permanently knock off a crossing like this, on the dam in Kamianske?

 https://www.google.com/maps/@48.5472177,34.5401911,360m/data=!3m1!1e3

It goes on a solid concrete dam. I don't believe tossing Kalibrs or Iskanders on it will make it inoperable for a longer period of time, they would have to keep the brarrage up. And there are many crossings like this. Hell, even rerouting communication through Kiyv and then along the northern bank of the Dnipro might be quite feasible.

[kraze]

18 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

JFO looks solid as hell. Throwing themselves against that fortified region sounds like a recipe for disaster. Best to take their rear from north and south. Notably, with the weather and mud, Ukraine's road networks pretty much have cities and towns as nexus points, and like the Kiev front shows, keeping them isolated and bypassed requires troops Russia does not really have.

Now the question is, does Kherson fall before the Russian offensive kicks off? If Kherson falls, with the Black Sea Fleet out of action, can Ukraine threaten Melitopol? If so, there's a chance the southern piercer never kicks off.

Also, what the hell is Russia thinking? End the bridges over the Dnipro. The idea that Russia has been holding back that many pro-russian analysts have suggested falls completely flat when Russia can't disrupt the transit west to east. As far as I can tell, there is a completely unbroken road network from Lviv to Dnipro. Russia has bridge layers, Ukraine? Does not?

I really want to know if Ukraine has lost S300 systems, or if Russia is lying. Obviously Ukraine will seek to hide that loss immensely. So far the way their sorties are slowing down, indicates a pause, rest, but if they want to succeed at the new offensive, they will need to up their sorties much more soon no? Or do you suppose the S300s are still contesting the sky?

So I've seen conflicting info about the Moskva, did it carry missiles used in targeting land based targets or was it purely acting as a fleet anti-air platform?

The sole fact that russian planes completely avoid flying anywhere that isn't 100% controlled by russia since day 1 should tell you if our S300 are out of action.

[FancyCat]

Ukraine has more night vision equipment than Russia apparently. (Uh anyone think that Russia not being able to do night fighting is just insanely disappointing?)

Anyone notice the big chunk of Ukrainian partisans on the ISW map, I think that's Melitopol. Now I don't think ISW is willy nilly covering convoys being blown up map wise with big chunks of contested land so maybe this uprising in Melitopol is substantial enough to contest the city and require reinforcements?

https://twitter.com/TheStudyofWar/status/1514758998221901827?t=s19c7-kNPsMdVP57qFPxYw&s=19

[Battlefront.com]

You know the old saying "there's an app for that"?  Well, in regards to mass discipline problems in the Russian army, "there is a stamp for that":

 

[BlackMoria]

Or that Ukrainian special forces haven't infiltrated in and cut wires or replace explosives with play dough.  Unless someone is doing a continuity test or visually checking the bridge demolitions daily, that is a possibility.

[kraze]

16 minutes ago, benpark said:

I wonder how the Russian old warhorse, the artillery will be used here. I see a lot of images of it moving up by rail, but that's just looking through a keyhole. Without decent drones (the coke-bottle gas tank drones aren't cutting it by any stretch), dealing with the pin-point nature of how I imagine the Ukrainian forces will be initially be arrayed won't play nice with the principle of massed-fire. That branch also seems more in the civilian depopulation of Ukraine game than the military at the moment as well.

The entire idea of another offensive is....offensive. Both on a human level, and a military one.

They are moving that artillery you see in videos over here because the previous one is gone.

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, Huba said:

How do you propose they could permanently knock off a crossing like this, on the dam in Kamianske?

 https://www.google.com/maps/@48.5472177,34.5401911,360m/data=!3m1!1e3

It goes on a solid concrete dam. I don't believe tossing Kalibrs or Iskanders on it will make it inoperable for a longer period of time, they would have to keep the brarrage up. And there are many crossings like this. Hell, even rerouting communication through Kiyv and then along the northern bank of the Dnipro might be quite feasible.

I don't think Russia would try to take out the dam.  Doesn't buy them anything and, my guess, could greatly disrupt the water supply to Crimea.

Remember, I'm only talking about crossing the river within Russia's sector of operations to the south.  North of that, they don't have much say in what happens.  If they did, they'd already have done something there.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, BlackMoria said:

Or that Ukrainian special forces haven't infiltrated in and cut wires or replace explosives with play dough.  Unless someone is doing a continuity test or visually checking the bridge demolitions daily, that is a possibility.

Yeah, and I think this is what sburke's snarky point was

Even if Russia doesn't manage to blow the bridge, it would be very difficult for Ukraine to leverage it quickly.  A prolonged series of hit and runs to weaken/distract and then rushing forces over the bridge when the opportunity presented itself is theoretically possible.  But quite risky unless the Russian forces on the eastern side withdraw.  That is possible, especially if the partisans grow in number directly behind them.

Steve

[Kinophile]

This terrain (thank you @The_Capt ) implies that whatever your op, 8t better be true combined arms - you can't let any one of the services drop the ball as the knock on effects to the other branches will rapidly cascade into mutually reinforcing, amplifying and accelerating death spasms.

Once one arm fails it's mission Id expect to see a very rapid AO-wide collapse, due to the sheer rate of attrition which then explodes into the tactical space vacated by that arm's failure. And also made worse, for RUS, by the brittleness of their force.

 

Edited April 15, 2022 by Kinophile

[Battlefront.com]

Short article with some insight from CIA Director Burns.  This seems to confirm that one reason for "why war now" is Putin felt the window of opportunity was closing for him to act.  We now know the window was already shut, shuttered, and locked.

We've mentioned, and show references to, the economic matchup between Ukraine and Russia being problematic for Russia as Ukraine is able to draw upon nearly unlimited resources from the West while Putin has no such backstop for its shortages.  However, I don't think anybody here has explicitly mentioned the fact that Ukraine has access to Western intel services that have combined budgets probably 2 times higher than Ukraine's entire GDP.  Russia has a couple of guys in fedoras and trench coats.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-crimes-ukraine-cia-director-william-burns-china/

Steve

[Huba]

21 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I don't think Russia would try to take out the dam.  Doesn't buy them anything and, my guess, could greatly disrupt the water supply to Crimea.

Remember, I'm only talking about crossing the river within Russia's sector of operations to the south.  North of that, they don't have much say in what happens.  If they did, they'd already have done something there.

Steve

Thank you, that is what I think exactly. If they could seriously disrupt movement across the Dneper in general, it would be already done at this point. IMO it would require air supremacy that they simply don't have.

Having said that, in Nova Kachovka near Kherson there's  also a dam, constituting the second permanent river crossing in the southern area. I think Russians have to blow it up if/ when they retreat - it won't destroy Kherson hopefully, as difference in water levels there is quite small, but it will stop the water flowing to Crimea. Already today Russians informed that allegedly they shot down 2 Ukrainian Tochkas aimed at the dam, sounds like preparing the groundwork for denying they blew it up.

[Battlefront.com]

Another guy that should spend some time in this thread.  The suggestion at the end of this article is that we need to wrap our heads around the fact that Russia is willing to fight for Ukrainian territory for years.  What he needs to wrap his head around is that's not practical.  I think some of you might have seen me mentioning it a few times over the last 6 weeks.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/ukraine-war-isnt-sprint

Steve

[FancyCat]

If you recall the videos of a BTR fighting in Mariupol that took out several Russian vehicles, including a tank preoccupied with fighting infantry, I'm gaining a big appreciation for the way Battlefront games stimulates morale, experience and especially suppression. There isn't a lot on the gaming market that let's you reflect Russian soldiers don't want to fight actions without tank support, or that Russian tankers are too overwhelmed to notice a BTR in front of them. It's one thing to read about a German force being suppressed in a book on WWII, another thing entirely to get HD footage of a BTR taking out tanks buttoned down, or TDF being suppressed by machine gun fire.

Obviously I think we all wish this never happened, and we could have lived in ignorance of Russian and Ukrainian large scale combat capabilities forever but it's going to be interesting to see how a future Combat Mission shows the conflict. (Or maybe more apt to say how scenario and mod packs do it depending on your design decisions)

Haven't been able to play any modern combat games since this started admittedly. God willing, Russia leaves sooner than later.

 

[Battlefront.com]

A Ukrainian source I follow (private FB page) stated yesterday that a special plane flew from Moscow to Sevastopol, then shortly after “men in civilian clothes” showed up at Black Sea Fleet headquarters in Sevastopol, and took Admiral Igor Osipov away.

Russia's history is to cover up its major failings through disinformation.  However, sometimes disinformation isn't feasible to the extent needed to explain away a major problem.  At that point Russia goes and grabs someone to lay the blame on.  This allows them to say "everything was going along fine, until this guy screwed up.  Don't worry, we've taken action to correct the situation".

Looks like Admiral Osipov might be moved to a different section of sburke's list pretty soon.

Steve

[Ts4EVER]

24 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Short article with some insight from CIA Director Burns.  This seems to confirm that one reason for "why war now" is Putin felt the window of opportunity was closing for him to act.  We now know the window was already shut, shuttered, and locked.

 

Same reason Hitler declared war in 39, even though the Wehrmacht was only supposed to be armed in 42. He knew that due to lack of foreign currency, armament programs in the western countries and the industrial might of the US, he would lose any arms race in the long term. But at the end of 39 he had the pact with the Soviet Union and arguably the best army on the continent (for now), so he figured "Now or never".

[FancyCat]

12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Short article with some insight from CIA Director Burns.  This seems to confirm that one reason for "why war now" is Putin felt the window of opportunity was closing for him to act.  We now know the window was already shut, shuttered, and locked.

We've mentioned, and show references to, the economic matchup between Ukraine and Russia being problematic for Russia as Ukraine is able to draw upon nearly unlimited resources from the West while Putin has no such backstop for its shortages.  However, I don't think anybody here has explicitly mentioned the fact that Ukraine has access to Western intel services that have combined budgets probably 2 times higher than Ukraine's entire GDP.  Russia has a couple of guys in fedoras and trench coats.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-crimes-ukraine-cia-director-william-burns-china/

Steve

I want to underscore that much of Russian basis for the invasion was based on a completely false premise that, well...it was a rotten house that would collapse with a good shove. It seems clear that the West, Russia, probably every major nation did not regard Ukraine's ability to resist would be this good or Russian war making be this bad. The West, in the most Ukrainian leaning sense seems to have merely regarded it as the beginning to Afghanistan, where occupation ended after decades of bleeding.

Russia seems to have completely shut their ears and just believed their lies about Ukraine not being a real nation and not worth it to the population to resist Russian control. (I hesitate to call it lies, it's simply clear they actually believed it to be true, this is akin to at least being a sort of Suez Crisis for Russia, in that their imperial myth is being shattered before their eyes)

Now if the basis of Russia's premise was true, the economic, intelligence power of the west wouldn't have mattered for ****. The Ukrainian government would have collapsed, Zelensky would have fled to Poland, sections of the Ukrainian military and government would have turned traitor.

Europe would have probably just shrugged and levied minor sanctions. I deeply wonder what Russia took from the end of the American-backed Afghanistan government if anything.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, db_zero said:

I took a look at this article and it mentions that in one of the potential what ifs (Scenario 2) is Dnipro becoming a key piece of terrain and if so that implies heavy urban combat. Looks like this person believes the main axis of the offense is further West

I have been seeing some of this in the mainstream as well.  From where they are now to Dnipro is 160kms of basically the same terrain.  I think the Russians might try this, as they have not shown any realistic objectives management in this war but it is the height of military insanity:

- They will likely not make it 50kms, let alone 150km unless the do some major re-tooling.  This is not at a "hey let's throw in more troops" this is at a doctrinal level.  They need to re-invent the BTG, or at least only ask a BTG to do what it can realistically accomplish and make more of them, along with a coherent formation structure on top of it.

- If they do success in carving a 160 km corridor to Dnipro they now have to defend it from both sides.  That is a lot more challenging than a corridor half that length between Izyum to Donetsk, which was going to be hard enough.

- You also have to take the entire length of the Dnieper River to Zaporizhia or you leave an open resupply corridor for the UA, albeit a river crossing. 

I am not sure why mainstream military analysis is still thinking in terms of big sweeping muscle movements for Russia at this point.  They tried that in the first phase of the war and failed.  We have discussed how "more troops" does not translate into "more combat power" extensively.  But I am still seeing talking heads discussing Russian offensives in pretty expansive terms.

Maybe there is something we are missing or seeing incorrectly but I just can't square it off.

[Saberwander]

4 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Russian cheerleaders elsewhere claim the more advanced Slovak S300 system that just arrived has been hit at Dnepro airport. Any harder info on this?

They claimed to have destroyed it a few days ago. I guess this is a new claim? Quite likely it's just propaganda. Smart thing to do for Ukraine is to keep the system hidden away as the pure existence of a S-300 system makes Russian air operations riskier and less likely. Shooting down couple of planes but losing S-300 is not worth it.

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

Also, what the hell is Russia thinking? End the bridges over the Dnipro. The idea that Russia has been holding back that many pro-russian analysts have suggested falls completely flat when Russia can't disrupt the transit west to east. As far as I can tell, there is a completely unbroken road network from Lviv to Dnipro. Russia has bridge layers, Ukraine? Does not?

 

That would be my first move but there are always the dams. Destroying dams is probably not on the table. I would still go for all the other bridges and especially other railways infrastructure further west. 

 

Btw Russia seems to be backpedaling on demands. Their initial demands were maximalist, denazification and demilitarization with annexation of eastern Ukraine, then they moved to "we just want to liberate DNR and LNR". The latest claim is that they only want to destroy nationalist battalions and that they are close to the end of the operation. To me it sounds like they will claim victory after they conquer Mariupol and "destroy" Azov battalion there. Looks to be a weak position. 

[sburke]

14 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

A Ukrainian source I follow (private FB page) stated yesterday that a special plane flew from Moscow to Sevastopol, then shortly after “men in civilian clothes” showed up at Black Sea Fleet headquarters in Sevastopol, and took Admiral Igor Osipov away.

Russia's history is to cover up its major failings through disinformation.  However, sometimes disinformation isn't feasible to the extent needed to explain away a major problem.  At that point Russia goes and grabs someone to lay the blame on.  This allows them to say "everything was going along fine, until this guy screwed up.  Don't worry, we've taken action to correct the situation".

Looks like Admiral Osipov might be moved to a different section of sburke's list pretty soon.

Steve

Likely just adding something similar to

Col Gen Sergei Beseda, head of the foreign intelligence branch of the FSB, the Fifth Service   Beseda has been sent to Lefortovo prison

If Putin keeps getting his teeth kicked in he may decide to let them exit Lefortovo in a casket.. or bag or send them to Satriale's Pork Store.

[Huba]

2 minutes ago, Saberwander said:

Btw Russia seems to be backpedaling on demands. Their initial demands were maximalist, denazification and demilitarization with annexation of eastern Ukraine, then they moved to "we just want to liberate DNR and LNR". The latest claim is that they only want to destroy nationalist battalions and that they are close to the end of the operation. To me it sounds like they will claim victory after they conquer Mariupol and "destroy" Azov battalion there. Looks to be a weak position. 

On the other hand, Zelensky mentioned a few days ago that re-taking DNR and LNR would cost 40 000 lives (something along those lines anyway), and it is not it the plans at the moment. Might it be that the eventual fall of Mariupol will be the end of the war, with Russia retreating to pre-February lines and Ukraine accepting that as preferable to continuing the war? Lives would be saved (to a degree) but it seems like a rotten compromise.

[db_zero]

26 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I have been seeing some of this in the mainstream as well.  From where they are now to Dnipro is 160kms of basically the same terrain.  I think the Russians might try this, as they have not shown any realistic objectives management in this war but it is the height of military insanity:

- They will likely not make it 50kms, let alone 150km unless the do some major re-tooling.  This is not at a "hey let's throw in more troops" this is at a doctrinal level.  They need to re-invent the BTG, or at least only ask a BTG to do what it can realistically accomplish and make more of them, along with a coherent formation structure on top of it.

- If they do success in carving a 160 km corridor to Dnipro they now have to defend it from both sides.  That is a lot more challenging than a corridor half that length between Izyum to Donetsk, which was going to be hard enough.

- You also have to take the entire length of the Dnieper River to Zaporizhia or you leave an open resupply corridor for the UA, albeit a river crossing. 

I am not sure why mainstream military analysis is still thinking in terms of big sweeping muscle movements for Russia at this point.  They tried that in the first phase of the war and failed.  We have discussed how "more troops" does not translate into "more combat power" extensively.  But I am still seeing talking heads discussing Russian offensives in pretty expansive terms.

Maybe there is something we are missing or seeing incorrectly but I just can't square it off.

My guess and its only a guess is if you look at a map of the natural gas reserves in Ukraine a wide sweeping movement would put a vast majority of those natural gas reserves under Russian control.

Another issue is water. Ukraine cut off the water supply to the Crimea and it caused crop failures and water rationing. Russia wants to control water flow so the Crimea has access to enough to meet its needs.

Neon for lasers used in microchip production. Last thing the West wants is Russia in control of a good portion of the global supply. Lithium is also a potential factor.

Behind every war there is usually a economic and resource issue behind the stated "noble" goals. It may not be completely rational from a military point of view to attempt a wide sweeping offensive, but it wouldn't be the first time a dictator insisted on military strategy based on resource reasons as opposed to sound military strategy.

 

Edited April 15, 2022 by db_zero

[warrenpeace]

https://www.the-sun.com/news/us-news/5131995/video-ukrainian-vehicle-destroys-russian-tank-donetsk/

Saw this video.  Seems to be a T72 being hit in the side by a BTR4.  My favorite though is the article prose:

"But the 44.5 tonne tanks are less mobile and quick to aim than nippy troop carriers like the BTR-4, whose cannons can rapid-fire."  

 

How many people refer to their armored troop carriers as "nippy"?

 

[FancyCat]

3 minutes ago, Huba said:

On the other hand, Zelensky mentioned a few days ago that re-taking DNR and LNR would cost 40 000 lives (something along those lines anyway), and it is not it the plans at the moment. Might it be that the eventual fall of Mariupol will be the end of the war, with Russia retreating to pre-February lines and Ukraine accepting that as preferable to continuing the war? Lives would be saved (to a degree) but it seems like a rotten compromise.

So far Ukraine has seemingly offered a return to the pre-invasion borders as perfectly acceptable for ending the war.

I don't think Russia will retreat and give up the territory taken for peace, for one, one of the reasons for intervention was the security of the separatist republics, and restoration of their de jure borders which have not been accomplished. Two, Mariupol needs to be kept. three, with the shiny new equipment Ukraine got, the Russian position pre-invasion is much worse than before if the lines shift back to before.

If Russia has returned to earth, their objective is to hold what they have and force a ceasefire where their forces remain on whatever ground they hold. That's the most realistic position Russia will attempt to accomplish imo.

[Huba]

Just now, FancyCat said:

So far Ukraine has seemingly offered a return to the pre-invasion borders as perfectly acceptable for ending the war.

Did they? As I remember, the matter of DNR, LNR and Crimea was to be discussed separately during Istanbul talks, and they didn't ever get to it. I might be wrong though.