How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Huba]

I have no words

 

[Armorgunner]

10 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

That's grotesque 

But with a Z on it. I love it anyway

[danfrodo]

12 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

@Battlefront.com @The_Capt

Reportedly Ukrainian troops launched series of tactical counter-offensive strikes in Kharkiv and Izium area.

By opinion of military expert group "Information resistans", looks like huge problems with supply and personnel forced Russian command to reject from "Big Saturn" operation and limit themeselve with "Little Saturn" like during WWII. This means, Russians PROBABLY can't conduct second line of encirclement of JTO zone on the line Izium -Lozova -Pavlohrad - Huliaypole and will concentrate own efforts only first line of encirclement Izium - Barvinkove - Dobropillia - Pokropvsk - Velyka Novosilka or some around this line 

But either this right or not we will see in nearest days. 

I hope the UKR counterattacks can trap large forces on the wrong side of the river.  That would be fun, watching multiple BTG worth of men and materials lost.  Would put quite a damper in the 'great offensive' we've heard so much about.

[Commanderski]

 

Edited April 16, 2022 by Commanderski

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

@sburke

0:10-0:11 seconds of video - commander of cruiser. Alive. But still unknown is this real video or cadets "as if Moskva crew"

I'm inclined to believe this is true.  Why?  Some of those guys look like they are about to cry.  Seriously. 

There's about 120-140 sailors in the video, which is only 1/4 of the entire crew of 500-550.  To me this is plausible as the reports are that 50+ were directly evacuated and there were bound to be guys floating in life preservers at the very least.  So it could be we are seeing the survivors.

Or, it could be that this is old footage of new cadets as Haiduk theorizes.

Steve

[kraze]

1 hour ago, danfrodo said:

sick, disgusting.  A society of aggrieved 'victims' that are so brainwashed they can't see that they are being oppressed by their own society and gov't, not by any outsider who are out to get them.   So they lash out at Ukraine?  As if all their problems are due to Ukraine?  How exactly would that be possible?

They are not being brainwashed or oppressed. They are the oppressors. You just have a western mindset that tries to make sense of what you see and hear according to your own world view. To you it seems wild or unbelievable. But there's a reason Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland are at the very front of helping Ukraine. They all share borders with russians. And they understand.

[Battlefront.com]

31 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

@Battlefront.com @The_Capt

Reportedly Ukrainian troops launched series of tactical counter-offensive strikes in Kharkiv and Izium area.

By opinion of military expert group "Information resistans", looks like huge problems with supply and personnel forced Russian command to reject from "Big Saturn" operation and limit themeselve with "Little Saturn" like during WWII. This means, Russians PROBABLY can't conduct second line of encirclement of JTO zone on the line Izium -Lozova -Pavlohrad - Huliaypole and will concentrate own efforts only first line of encirclement Izium - Barvinkove - Dobropillia - Pokropvsk - Velyka Novosilka or some around this line 

But either this right or not we will see in nearest days. 

The chances of the "Big Saturn" attack working were always very low.  Russia needs too much time to prepare for it, which gives Ukraine a lot of chances to disrupt it.  Given how delicate the Russian positions are, disruption shouldn't be that difficult just like the Soviet Union did to Orel in 1943.

Ukraine has (or had?) two possibilities:

1. forestall the Russian offensive
2. hold back in readiness, then smash it once Russia was too committed to call it off

Both have pros/cons and I don't have the intel on Ukrainian forces or strategic thinking to know which one is the better choice.  It seems Ukraine has selected #1.  Given how well they've managed the war so far, I have confidence that this is the right decision in the context of their overall strategic concept of winning the war.

Steve

[The_Capt]

29 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

@Battlefront.com @The_Capt

Reportedly Ukrainian troops launched series of tactical counter-offensive strikes in Kharkiv and Izium area.

By opinion of military expert group "Information resistans", looks like huge problems with supply and personnel forced Russian command to reject from "Big Saturn" operation and limit themeselve with "Little Saturn" like during WWII. This means, Russians PROBABLY can't conduct second line of encirclement of JTO zone on the line Izium -Lozova -Pavlohrad - Huliaypole and will concentrate own efforts only first line of encirclement Izium - Barvinkove - Dobropillia - Pokropvsk - Velyka Novosilka or some around this line 

But either this right or not we will see in nearest days. 

Nice.  Disruption and dislocation through friction.  How much of those "huge problems" are self inflicted and how many are a result of 1) losses in the first phase of the war (Oryx has 827 Russian logistics vehicles lost, while a lot of people are looking at tanks, that is the number I have been tracking), and 2) continued deep strikes on assembly areas and logistical nodes?  This will be key to determining the range of operational level options left to the Russian forces.

I have to agree, the longer this takes the more likely we are going to see very modest pincers attempts, to the point they may just try tactical-level "rubbing" to look like something is happening while never really going for decisive battle.  This will, of course, cause them a lot of attrition.  The only other play may be to use lower quality troops to do the up front dying while looking for an operational opportunity...so basically "hope" is their main course of action.

28 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

In conclusion, the tank is not dead today because there is no replacement for it.  But there is a potential replacement on the way that appears to satisfy the arguments the presenter made.

Watched this too and it is too narrow.  It is the entire "tank-system" that is in question, not a single force element.  It is the vulnerability of the logistical systems, visibility, comparative replacement cost and front end asymmetry with next get ATGMs that has got the eyebrows up.  Of course this is more than just "tanks", it also includes all mounted mass (armor, infantry and artillery with combat support).  For example, the author of the video explains correctly that "ambushes have always occurred", well true but not at 40+kms with a combination of UAV and self-loitering munitions.

What is happening is not "tank vs ATGM" that is too simplistic, it is a collision of systems, one we recognize, the other is something else.  As Steve points out, the victorious system also points to emerging additional sub-systems that can rapidly manoeuvre, do not need the same levels of survivability or logistics (largely because they are much lighter and lack humans onboard), have as much or even more lethality, and are significantly cheaper.  

Don't get me wrong the "tank" or something like it will likely stick around but it may be a CP or hauling batteries and spare parts for the unmanned systems instead of being at the front edge. 

[DesertFox]

 

 

[Haiduk]

Just now, Huba said:

I have no words

 

In Kyiv oblast now recovered 900 bodies. Of course some part of them died with natural death  - for example first several dozens burials in mass grave near the church in Bucha weren't victims of murdering, but most of them were killed or tortured, raped and killed by Russians

But these "Buchas" ideed much more...

Here is basement in school of Yahidne village in Chernihiv oblast. Russians established own HQ in villge school and drove to the basement about 300 villagers as live shield. They spent in the cell about month. Russians allowed to go out only several times by small groups. Several times they took people and beat up them, or rape. People suffered in the basement from stuffiness, lack of food and medicine. 10 have died during this month  - Russians allowed to burry them only several times, so corpses laid there near live people. On the photo - people wrote the names of died and the data of their death on the wall, also they kept calendar on the door with last writing - "31st of March - ours came". Total in Yahidne recovered 17 bodies. 13 of them local settlers, 2 employees of logistic company and 2 UKR militaries - four latters had tracks of tortures and were shot in the nape.   

[danfrodo]

8 minutes ago, kraze said:

They are not being brainwashed or oppressed. They are the oppressors. You just have a western mindset that tries to make sense of what you see and hear according to your own world view. To you it seems wild or unbelievable. But there's a reason Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland are at the very front of helping Ukraine. They all share borders with russians. And they understand.

We are actually agreeing Haiduk -- what I am saying is they are the oppessors, but that they believe themselves to be some aggrieved victims to justify their criminal beliefs & actions.  They are monsters.  And totally stupid to actually believe the idiocy they are being fed. 

Edited April 16, 2022 by danfrodo
add

[The_MonkeyKing]

25 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Someone posted this fantastic video a few days ago challenging the notion that "the tank is dead" because of what we see in this war.  It's *VERY* good and quite entertaining.  I recommend it with two thumbs up.  Except for one thing

The presenter makes an incredibly strong case that the tank, today, isn't dead.  I don't question that at all.  New threats?  Yes, but every war tends to produce one or more of these things.  As the presenter would say, it's normal.

The one shortcoming of this video is right at the end.  He lays out an excellent argument about how important it is to take into account all battlefield capabilities and assess them as a whole.  This is one reason why the Russians are doing so poorly and the Ukrainians so well when it comes to armored warfare.  The Russians aren't using all their battlefield assets in a combined way.

He also makes the excellent point that there's no existing system out there to replace the utility of the tank.  That's true.  And he makes another excellent argument that the cost of the tank isn't out of line with the costs of other systems vs. their central threat.  Also true.

The problem comes when he says he doesn't see this changing because he doesn't know of anything that can replace the tank's role on the battlefield in the future.  And here is where he's violated some of his own arguments as to why the "tank is dead" people are all wrong.

While there is no singular system that can replace a tank on the horizon, there is a component of a new combined arms force that is already practically available -> unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs).

A single UGV armed with an RWS with HMG and NLOS missiles mean a single soldier, perhaps thousands of miles away, can effectively conduct offensive operations roughly equivalent to a single tank (limitations to be noted in a sec).  In fact, I would argue it can conduct such operations much better as a UGV is vastly more maneuverable, less detectable, and more sustainable in the field than a tank.  It is also vastly cheaper to make, so the impact of losing one is far less than losing a MBT.  And with the "crew" safely on the other side of the world, you don't risk your valuable Human resources like you do with a MBT (3-4 lives at risk).  You can also more easily rotate "crew" for a UGV so that it is always up 24/7.  Hell, you can even have someone swap in to man the system while the first operator goes to take a leak or grab a bite to eat, not to mention some sleep.

Will a single UGV replace a single tank in terms of combat capabilities?  No.  But that's not the way to think about it and, as I just said, violates the well laid out arguments the presenter made.  Namely, it's not about a single component but the totality of the combined effect that matters.

Combine SGT Smith, UGV operator, with SGT Jenkins, UAV operator.  Now you have two guys with more capabilities than a modern MBT.  Add in SGT Jones, EW operator, and now you have a dedicated person maintaining an EW bubble around the UGV.  That's 3 guys who are more at risk of dying from a paper cut than combat projecting force on the battlefield equal to a MBT with a crew of 3 or 4 at constant risk of dying.

I could go on and on here, but I think you get the point.

Now, there are definitely limitations for the UGV concept.  The first is that it can't carry as much ammunition as a MBT, which means it has to be rearmed more frequently than a MBT in intense combat situations.  However, for most situations that shouldn't present much of a problem because precision weapons mean more likely to score a kill first shot.  4x current tech UGVs have the ability to defeat 8x AFVs without reloading.  I expect that will change and soon 4x UGVs might be able to destroy 16x or 24x AFVs without reloading.

With LOS missiles there is some risk of losing the UGVs, but with NLOS missiles the risk goes down dramatically.  With NLOS weapons it should be much easier to reload UGVs because they don't have to be within LOS or small arms range of the enemy.  An armored supply UGV with a Human crew (or in the not-too-distant future remote operated crane) could quickly reload and have them back in the field before the enemy had a chance to recover.

In conclusion, the tank is not dead today because there is no replacement for it.  But there is a potential replacement on the way that appears to satisfy the arguments the presenter made.

It will be interesting to examine how UGVs operate in Combat Mission vs. current conventional forces.  Someday in the near future you'll be able to come to your own conclusions, but for now let's just say the word we use to describe them is "creepy".

Steve

Chieftain made a similar case as Military History Visualized.

- Nothing else available to replace the capability of the tank. (He also didn't really mention UGVs as an alternative.)
- Compares tanks to infantry. Vulnerable yes, but nothing else gets the job done
- Very few militaries have come to the conclusion of "No tanks" needed
- "protection onion". tank still has the most layers. (notice all the most talked stuff like armor thickness and APS come last)

I am still undecided about the UGVs ability to replace tanks. Wing-man and point-man tanks yes, certainly.

- UGV still needs maintaining and labor constantly. In MBT this means checking checklists and adding fluids every couple of hours.
- UGV "Crew" would still need a protected space to be in. (or the daily maintenance personnel)
- Risks of electric warfare

[Battlefront.com]

19 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Watched this too and it is too narrow.  It is the entire "tank-system" that is in question, not a single force element.  It is the vulnerability of the logistical systems, visibility, comparative replacement cost and front end asymmetry with next get ATGMs that has got the eyebrows up.  Of course this is more than just "tanks", it also includes all mounted mass (armor, infantry and artillery with combat support).  For example, the author of the video explains correctly that "ambushes have always occurred", well true but not at 40+kms with a combination of UAV and self-loitering munitions.

What is happening is not "tank vs ATGM" that is too simplistic, it is a collision of systems, one we recognize, the other is something else.  As Steve points out, the victorious system also points to emerging additional sub-systems that can rapidly manoeuvre, do not need the same levels of survivability or logistics (largely because they are much lighter and lack humans onboard), have as much or even more lethality, and are significantly cheaper.  

Yes   So here's the thing that was not covered by the video.  He says we see lots and lots of trucks being killed, but we aren't saying "the truck is dead".  Well, let me be the first to say it then... "the truck is dead"

What proportion of all those trucks we've seen blown up were dedicated to bringing supplies to tanks, their crews, and everybody that is dedicated to support them?  A fair amount I would think.

If we remove the logistics necessary for the concept of tanks (including support units) we remove the amount of trucks needed for resupplying a force in the field.  Less trucks, less targets, less opportunities to kill them.  Conversely, fewer trucks means they could be better equipped to defend themselves such as having armor, APS, and EW capabilities.  This sort of force protection measures are cost prohibitive if you need to do it for 10,000 trucks.

Then there's UGVs dedicated for cargo carrying.  Take everything I said about combat UGVs with UAVs and EW assets and apply it to the cargo UGVs.  Same defensive effect.

So I guess I have two objections to the guy's video.  I believe soon we will say "the tank is dead" and we will say "the truck is dead"

Steve

P.S. I'm not totally serious about trucks being off the battlefield entirely.  Too cheap to make and useful for that to happen.  But I expect in 10 years combat logistics will look very different than it does today.  A lot less trucks as we know them today.

[Battlefront.com]

15 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

 

 

I saw someone post (or repost?) a comment about this sort of corruption issue within the last day.  Basically, if you have been falsifying the records all along you're going to keep falsifying them because otherwise you'll get arrested/shot.

This Tweet hints that someone senior has finally decided it's time to verify the reports from subordinate units.

Steve

[DesertFox]

 

 

[womble]

3 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

- UGV still needs maintaining and labor constantly. In MBT this means checking checklists and adding fluids every couple of hours.

That's an eye-opener. Had no idea they needed that frequent attention (we're not talking just topping off the fuel tanks, I presume, but additional things like coolant and hydraulics). I think the UGVs that most people are thinking of will need less TLC than a 70T behemoth does, being lighter systems, putting less stress on their components. But maintenance of some kind, even if it's mostly changing batteries and reloading VLS cells will still be necessary, of course.

7 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

- UGV "Crew" would still need a protected space to be in. (or the daily maintenance personnel)

The operator crew could be very remote indeed, possibly even on a different continent, so hopefully their protected space would be easy enough to find. The maintenance guys, though, they'll still need to be there in-theatre for sure. I think the concept is that there won't be as many of them needed, again because the things that need hands-on maintenance are simpler and less stressed than the  moving parts of an MBT.

Of course, both these "suppositions" about the character of battlefield ground drones will need confirmation once the rubber hits whatever road they're forced to roll down by the Rasputitsa...

[sburke]

54 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

A single UGV armed with an RWS with HMG and NLOS missiles mean a single soldier, perhaps thousands of miles away, can effectively conduct offensive operations roughly equivalent to a single tank (limitations to be noted in a sec).  In fact, I would argue it can conduct such operations much better as a UGV is vastly more maneuverable, less detectable, and more sustainable in the field than a tank.  It is also vastly cheaper to make, so the impact of losing one is far less than losing a MBT.  And with the "crew" safely on the other side of the world, you don't risk your valuable Human resources like you do with a MBT (3-4 lives at risk).  You can also more easily rotate "crew" for a UGV so that it is always up 24/7.  Hell, you can even have someone swap in to man the system while the first operator goes to take a leak or grab a bite to eat, not to mention some sleep.

Will a single UGV replace a single tank in terms of combat capabilities?  No.  But that's not the way to think about it and, as I just said, violates the well laid out arguments the presenter made.  Namely, it's not about a single component but the totality of the combined effect that matters.

Combine SGT Smith, UGV operator, with SGT Jenkins, UAV operator.  Now you have two guys with more capabilities than a modern MBT.  Add in SGT Jones, EW operator, and now you have a dedicated person maintaining an EW bubble around the UGV.  That's 3 guys who are more at risk of dying from a paper cut than combat projecting force on the battlefield equal to a MBT with a crew of 3 or 4 at constant risk of dying.

I could go on and on here, but I think you get the point.

Now, there are definitely limitations for the UGV concept.  The first is that it can't carry as much ammunition as a MBT, which means it has to be rearmed more frequently than a MBT in intense combat situations.  However, for most situations that shouldn't present much of a problem because precision weapons mean more likely to score a kill first shot.  4x current tech UGVs have the ability to defeat 8x AFVs without reloading.  I expect that will change and soon 4x UGVs might be able to destroy 16x or 24x AFVs without reloading.

With LOS missiles there is some risk of losing the UGVs, but with NLOS missiles the risk goes down dramatically.  With NLOS weapons it should be much easier to reload UGVs because they don't have to be within LOS or small arms range of the enemy.  An armored supply UGV with a Human crew (or in the not-too-distant future remote operated crane) could quickly reload and have them back in the field before the enemy had a chance to recover.

In conclusion, the tank is not dead today because there is no replacement for it.  But there is a potential replacement on the way that appears to satisfy the arguments the presenter made.

It will be interesting to examine how UGVs operate in Combat Mission vs. current conventional forces.  Someday in the near future you'll be able to come to your own conclusions, but for now let's just say the word we use to describe them is "creepy".

Steve

The one area where this becomes perhaps a little more complicated is logistics.  As you'd noted ammo carrying is one issue.  In addition, there are a lot of systems now on this UGV that would need maintenance and repair.  So you have these 3 people sitting in Montana operating their UGV and all is going great.  Then it throws a track, breaks something, gets stuck in the mud, gets poked in the sensor by some stupid bird etc etc  Now you need to dispatch someone because there is no crew to fix it.  In fact in the whole "armored" company there is nobody around cause they are all UGVs.  I wonder if the attrition rates we are seeing with Russian units would be all that different in these units considering you don't have the ability to deal with even minor problems that could be handled by a few humans who aren't there.

Those humans in the resupply vehicle are going to be the target you want to hit now.

and what @womble said!

 

Edited April 16, 2022 by sburke

[TheVulture]

Railway bridge in Vasylivka, Zaporizhzhia region destroyed

 

 

[acrashb]

13 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The only other play may be to use lower quality troops to do the up front dying while looking for an operational opportunity...so basically "hope" is their main course of action.

Given that Russia may now be flirting with formally declaring war, clearing a path for general mobilization and much higher numbers of troops (to state the obvious, poorly-trained and equipped), I've been thinking about human-wave attacks.

From wikipedia regarding the iran-iraq ware, "The human wave assaults, often with no support from other military branches due to rivalry with the remnants of the former Imperial Iranian Army,[6] were met with crushing artillery, rocket, and tank fire from Iraq's defence that caused massive losses to the Iranian side.[6]".  However, the general article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_wave_attack) shows similar attacks being effective in some circumstances (e.g., the Imperial Japanese Army against the Chinese). 

Overall I don't see human-wave working in the sense of taking ground against the UA.  However, when you say "looking for an operational opportunity", one could see periodic human wave as a crude form of recon, leading to identification of 'operational opportunities'.  So it's a form of ISR, and success would hinge on getting information up the chain for analysis / decision and then orders back down the chain.  Which in turn would hinge on improvements in comms as compared to what's been seen so far, and modest changes in doctrine.

Then there's the "what happens if UA runs out of ammo" as in just too many Russians (assuming Russian troop can be persuaded or forced to keep advancing).  While I don't have any special insight into ammo / ordnance levels in the UA, if the Iraqi army managed to keep up, it seem that the UA as supplied by NATO will as well.

 

 

 

[Huba]

3 minutes ago, TheVulture said:

Railway bridge in Vasylivka, Zaporizhzhia region destroyed

 

 

Who is denying this crossing to whom?

[Aragorn2002]

2 hours ago, kraze said:

sadly that's just a tip of the iceberg. That rabbit hole of absolute evil goes way way way deeper in there.

Kill them all and let God sort them out.

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Chieftain made a similar case as Military History Visualized.

- Nothing else available to replace the capability of the tank. (He also didn't really mention UGVs as an alternative.)
- Compares tanks to infantry. Vulnerable yes, but nothing else gets the job done
- Very few militaries have come to the conclusion of "No tanks" needed
- "protection onion". tank still has the most layers. (notice all the most talked stuff like armor thickness and APS come last)

Notice that UAVs have stripped away the first three layers and smart ATGMs strip away the forth (mobility/cover) and likely the last two (armor and luck).

So when you combine UAVs and UGVs armed with (especially) NLOS weaponry, what layers of the onion remain?  APS (which isn't on his onion chart) will be the only hope of survival.  Armor won't be.

At the very least a new onion is needed with EW and counter UAV capabilities trying to keep the weapon from getting close enough for the final layer, APS, to defeat it.

10 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

I am still undecided about the UGVs ability to replace tanks. Wing-man and point-man tanks yes, certainly.

- UGV still needs maintaining and labor constantly. In MBT this means checking checklists and adding fluids every couple of hours.

True, logistics don't go away.  However, all logistics are a fraction of a concern for UGVs as they are for MBTs.  For example, my Ford F-250 and 16' car trailer allows me to take three of these bad boys home for repairs.  I think we all know how many MBTs I could take home with me!

10 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

- UGV "Crew" would still need a protected space to be in. (or the daily maintenance personnel)

The strip malls the CIA uses for its UGV crews are often in bad neighborhoods, but I still say they are safer than the battlefield

The personnel that have to sustain these vehicles in the field need less protected space than tanks do.  They can be done in many locations, such as a civilian car garage, that would not be possible for a MBT.  Harder to spot a UGV being serviced under cover than a MBT out in the open.

10 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

- Risks of electric warfare

Yes, but all those fancy bits of stuff stuck to MBTs are also vulnerable to EW.  If EW knocks out a UGV it's more readily replaceable.  EW knocking out an a tank's electronics just before a ATGM hits is very different.

Steve

[kraze]

21 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I saw someone post (or repost?) a comment about this sort of corruption issue within the last day.  Basically, if you have been falsifying the records all along you're going to keep falsifying them because otherwise you'll get arrested/shot.

This Tweet hints that someone senior has finally decided it's time to verify the reports from subordinate units.

Steve

Bonus russian corruption points if people responsible were assigned responsible by the actual culprits.

[Battlefront.com]

19 minutes ago, womble said:

That's an eye-opener. Had no idea they needed that frequent attention (we're not talking just topping off the fuel tanks, I presume, but additional things like coolant and hydraulics). I think the UGVs that most people are thinking of will need less TLC than a 70T behemoth does, being lighter systems, putting less stress on their components. But maintenance of some kind, even if it's mostly changing batteries and reloading VLS cells will still be necessary, of course.

Yup, UGVs need a LOT less maintenance than a MBT.  Both in terms of types of maintenance and the volume of it.

This is akin to the arguments about total life cost of an electric car vs. a hybrid vs. a petrol model.  The electric car (EV) is more money up front, but it has just about no maintenance other than the tires and the battery.  Petrol vehicles are cheaper up front, but points of failure are many and the costs of preventing them get worse over time.  Hybrids are the worst as they have all the costs of the EV plus all the costs of the petrol vehicle.

EVs have their limitations, but logistics to keep it running over time is not one of them.

Steve

[Huba]

9 minutes ago, acrashb said:

Given that Russia may now be flirting with formally declaring war, clearing a path for general mobilization and much higher numbers of troops (to state the obvious, poorly-trained and equipped), I've been thinking about human-wave attacks.

From wikipedia regarding the iran-iraq ware, "The human wave assaults, often with no support from other military branches due to rivalry with the remnants of the former Imperial Iranian Army,[6] were met with crushing artillery, rocket, and tank fire from Iraq's defence that caused massive losses to the Iranian side.[6]".  However, the general article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_wave_attack) shows similar attacks being effective in some circumstances (e.g., the Imperial Japanese Army against the Chinese). 

Overall I don't see human-wave working in the sense of taking ground against the UA.  However, when you say "looking for an operational opportunity", one could see periodic human wave as a crude form of recon, leading to identification of 'operational opportunities'.  So it's a form of ISR, and success would hinge on getting information up the chain for analysis / decision and then orders back down the chain.  Which in turn would hinge on improvements in comms as compared to what's been seen so far, and modest changes in doctrine.

Then there's the "what happens if UA runs out of ammo" as in just too many Russians (assuming Russian troop can be persuaded or forced to keep advancing).  While I don't have any special insight into ammo / ordnance levels in the UA, if the Iraqi army managed to keep up, it seem that the UA as supplied by NATO will as well.

 

 

 

I think that with the access to information average person has, even if it is as controlled as in Russia, the society wouldn't have the stomach for it to a degree it had say in WW1. It would break their morale quickly, especially as however you spin it, they are not defending their homeland there but are attacking. I might have too much faith in the humanity though...