How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[FancyCat]

Neptune antiship missiles exist, it would be a suicide run, wouldn't it?

[Huba]

1 minute ago, sross112 said:

Transnistria

Ok, so we have the FSB or someone stirring things up there. They got their military  and the Russian BTG's on full alert.

The Russians hit the only bridge linking the southern part of Odessa Oblast.

 

Apparently a dozen ships have moved into the Southern Naval Base which is apparently used for staging operations.

Do you think the RuN will make a landing in southern Odessa Oblast? Looks like good beaches for it and not sure what defenses would be down there as it looks like no large towns.

When I search for why it really doesn't make much sense, especially since they hit the bridge. If the bridge is the only access from Odessa it is also the access to Odessa. So there really isn't a threat there and really no forces would need to be shifted to cover it from other areas. What they have locally in Odessa should be enough. It does give Putin a talking point about taking a chunk of land and it would put Odessa in artillery range which maybe he thinks can be a card to play for negotiations?

Or does this have something to do with Transnistria? Blow the bridge to protect the flank and help relieve the beleaguered and surrounded Transnistrians? Do they think they could bring enough combat power over to maybe start up a shooting war between Moldova and the separatists? This would be a huge provocation to Romania and probably NATO. 

I'm trying to make sense of how anything around there makes sense or helps Putin with his war goals in Ukraine. I wouldn't think Ukraine would divert anything that way short of some sort of RA invasion from there. The only way to move more troops from the southern part of the Odessa Oblast into Transnistria is through Moldova. I can't imagine Moldova would consent to the RA moving through their territory. 

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me but I guess it doesn't have to. If it makes sense to Putin that is enough. Just definitely think something is brewing.

To answer that in short - no way in hell they could succeed, here's why (IMO of course):

- the shore is extremely unfriendly for a landing. Either you have some cliffs (10+ meters high or more, or shore likes with just very narrow patch of land followed by a lake or enclosed bay. After landing you'd have to instantly build a bridge there. Take a closer tour on Google Earth, it is a hell for landing force. 

- the only reasonable port for your supporting forces in is Dniester estuary, 3km from UA shore, even tanks could shoot at you if you tried to land

- Neptunes

- Ukrainians still could reinforce by ferries through Dniester estuary, it's quite narrow.

- at least based on photos, bridge looked like it was really easy to fix (at least for military purposes)

- pontoon bridge can be built easily

- BMPs and the like could swim there

- in whole Budjak there are no airfields good enough to support your transport planes

- UA Airforce could show in force and bomb the crap out of you. UA could easily reinforce by heli from Odessa

It is interesting what Russians are up to, but landing in Budjak looks suicidal

[sburke]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

An NCO’s ground view is something to take seriously in my experience.  They view from trench level but you can’t find a more honest assessment if you tried.

you are just trying to kiss up to @Combatintman

[Kinophile]

ref. Neptunes, I believe they're actually very limited in number.

That said, UK AsHM have been on the radar for over a month so they could be getting into place. Maybe.

Edited April 27, 2022 by Kinophile

[sburke]

31 minutes ago, sross112 said:

Do you think the RuN will make a landing in southern Odessa Oblast? Looks like good beaches for it and not sure what defenses would be down there as it looks like no large towns.

With what?  All their Naval infantry units have already been committed.  More BS from the Kremlin seems like.  They are still working from the playbook that thinks people actually view the Russian military as worth a damn.  Pathetic really.

[Huba]

I think that the area where the ships are parked was chosen on the ground that it's defensible with ground based AD, allows for ships to be dispersed much better then in Sevastopol and is still relatively close to the potential theater of operation. A poor man's Scapa Flow.

[sburke]

1 hour ago, Kinophile said:

Even so, the capability still exists. Its a question of priorities and right now the slap & tickle in the fields is winning out. But If RUS goes full mobilization then Russian air dominance is a definite possibility. A proper air campaign, with a relentless focus on rapidly degrading UKR SAM defense is perfectly achievable - if the decision is made to do so. It hasn't been yet, not in the way it needs to be, ie pause ground activity until air dominance is properly achieved. The RuAF cannot sit on two stools and achieve success in both (air war v ground war). Even the US did air war first, the ground in Iraq, both times. It just more sensible to focus on a single strategic task which then enables the next. RuAF is fully aware of this concept but Kremlin gob****es shafted them (thankfully) by limiting the nature of the operation, confusing the situation and not appointing a single overall commander. The eventual appointment of a mud-humper as commander of the invasion probably reinforces the ground war emphasis and retards the RuAFs internal political capital to get to do what it should be doing, crunching the UKR AA/AD.

 

Somewhere back in the thread (and anything more than 1 page back quickly becomes ancient history) there was a post about how the Russians prosecute air war and it seems that western perceptions of air supremacy and a proper air campaign aren't in the books.  Note there was also a question as to whether western views on air supremacy were still valid even.

Edited April 27, 2022 by sburke

[Huba]

@Kinophile I'll be happy to exchange opinions tomorrow, but now it's waaay past bedtime where I live. However in the meantime, I really recommend this video about Russian prosecution of air war. It goes against many well established, but unsubstantiated notions about Russian supremacy:

 

[sross112]

6 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Youre reasoning is sound to this civvy civ, I'm hoping youre right, but I'm going to give another devil's advocate pass, just for my own persnickitiness.

Re could-have/would-have - not quite a definitive closer; by that rational they would have taken Kiev if they could have, but they couldn't so they didn't. Which is not quite true - a lot had to go right for Ukraine for it to win that fight. A lot could easily have gone wrong. Kiev was in no way predetermined.

The same goes for the air war - Russia easily has the tech and numbers to achieve full air superiority; but political considerations ("special operation") limited its initial strategic orbat which, when it failed to achieve A/S, left no further opportunity to gain it.

Even so, the capability still exists. Its a question of priorities and right now the slap & tickle in the fields is winning out. But If RUS goes full mobilization then Russian air dominance is a definite possibility. A proper air campaign, with a relentless focus on rapidly degrading UKR SAM defense is perfectly achievable - if the decision is made to do so. It hasn't been yet, not in the way it needs to be, ie pause ground activity until air dominance is properly achieved. The RuAF cannot sit on two stools and achieve success in both (air war v ground war). Even the US did air war first, the ground in Iraq, both times. It just more sensible to focus on a single strategic task which then enables the next. RuAF is fully aware of this concept but Kremlin gob****es shafted them (thankfully) by limiting the nature of the operation, confusing the situation and not appointing a single overall commander. The eventual appointment of a mud-humper as commander of the invasion probably reinforces the ground war emphasis and retards the RuAFs internal political capital to get to do what it should be doing, crunching the UKR AA/AD.

TL/DR my angle here is that the RuAF is currently prioritizing the operational ground grind at the cost of a true strategic air campaign. Or rather, the Kremlin is doing so. But the technical and platform capability still exists to turn around the air war, its a question of the decision being made at the cost of other wants.

But Putler wants his May 9th geriatric handjob with soiled ribbon on, so the ground war it is.

Finally, I would be very wary of noting large numbers of anything in Ukraine and assuming that that is what is actually operational and resilient enough for the task at hand. 500 diesel locomotives sounds great, but I highly doubt that's actually 500 running around,  hot n ready, spanky nice machines. I'd lay odds that at most its 300 actually available. Repairs, upgrades, end of life, etc all take their toll. I'm ignoring electrics as I believe its diesels that do the heavy lifting at speed - I think? Happy to be corrected.

Enjoying this push and pull, please squash me with better reasoning

Kyiv - I have to disagree. The only way that Kyiv could have been taken with the forces deployed is if it was a repeat of Kherson where the governor failed to train and arm the TD forces, made sure the regular forces were out of position on training maneuvers and opened the doors to the RA. The citizens of Kyiv were training for weeks ahead of time in the streets with small arms and making their own molotov cocktails. Several brigades would have fell back into the city as well to bolster the defenses. It is a huge city with lots of large stone and concrete buildings perfect for defense whether they are standing or in rubble. Mariupol is a small town compared to Kyiv and they still haven't managed to take all of it. I just don't think they had enough people even if that was the only place they attacked and brought everyone they had to the fight.

Air superiority - The Capt had a good post awhile back about the difficulties of SEAD and DEAD. I'm not an air expert so I would hash it up if I tried to give a technical explanation, but basically it is a lot harder than it looks. Yes the US did this in it's campaigns but that is because they are the only ones that are truly efficient at it. They have whole squadrons of EW and SEAD as their primary missions and train for it constantly. I think The Capt said something to the effect of "Strapping an EW pod on one wing and a anti-radar missile on the other does not make a SEAD campaign happen". So the counter is that they don't have air superiority anywhere because they aren't capable of it. If they were they would have been grinding away for the past almost 8 weeks and they would be doing deeper strikes at logistics and such. But they aren't because they can't. 

Railroads and supply - I couldn't find hard numbers of how much per per soldier per day in modern mechanized formations is required, but let's say they need 100 lbs a day each on average. Have to figure fuel weight and ammo weight for the big guns drives the number up. Of course a light infantryman won't need that much but a cannon cocker will need more, so we can just use that for an average. The UA has approximately 200,000 troops. That's 20,000,000 lbs a day or 10,000 tons a day. Each rail car can haul 50-100 tons but we will go with 50. So that is 200 cars a day. That's 4 average trains a day, but we'll say they will need to go to multiple locations so we'll say 20 a day with varying number of cars depending on the units they are supplying and consumption rates, etc. 20 a day should be reasonably easy for them to manage. Destroying enough locomotives to where they can't find 20 a day to supply the forces defending the existence of their nation will be the hard part. Especially without air superiority, see above.  

[BeondTheGrave]

30 minutes ago, sross112 said:

Transnistria

Ok, so we have the FSB or someone stirring things up there. They got their military  and the Russian BTG's on full alert.

The Russians hit the only bridge linking the southern part of Odessa Oblast.

 

Apparently a dozen ships have moved into the Southern Naval Base which is apparently used for staging operations.

Do you think the RuN will make a landing in southern Odessa Oblast? Looks like good beaches for it and not sure what defenses would be down there as it looks like no large towns.

When I search for why it really doesn't make much sense, especially since they hit the bridge. If the bridge is the only access from Odessa it is also the access to Odessa. So there really isn't a threat there and really no forces would need to be shifted to cover it from other areas. What they have locally in Odessa should be enough. It does give Putin a talking point about taking a chunk of land and it would put Odessa in artillery range which maybe he thinks can be a card to play for negotiations?

Or does this have something to do with Transnistria? Blow the bridge to protect the flank and help relieve the beleaguered and surrounded Transnistrians? Do they think they could bring enough combat power over to maybe start up a shooting war between Moldova and the separatists? This would be a huge provocation to Romania and probably NATO. 

I'm trying to make sense of how anything around there makes sense or helps Putin with his war goals in Ukraine. I wouldn't think Ukraine would divert anything that way short of some sort of RA invasion from there. The only way to move more troops from the southern part of the Odessa Oblast into Transnistria is through Moldova. I can't imagine Moldova would consent to the RA moving through their territory. 

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me but I guess it doesn't have to. If it makes sense to Putin that is enough. Just definitely think something is brewing.

I dont see it as very feasible except in one situation (below). But if you look geographically Odessa cannot be cut off by destroying bridges. It has land connections to Moldova, one major arty crosses over a dam, and then of course fully half the city sits on a land bridge connecting it to the rest of Ukraine. Unless the Russian navy has developed some sort of gigantic earth mover, it cannot destroy enough infrastructure to totally cut off Odessa. The tough spot for Ukraine is that southwest of Odessa is a large tract of land, mostly national parks, which is connected to the city first by a now damaged bridge and second by several roads running through Moldova. This land could be captured. To what end I dont know. AFAIK the geography here is flat and sandy. Those lagoons feature no major port facilities. And a big chunk of landing sites would be within the range of Odessa's coastal defenses. Russia could use its Moldovan forces to try and break into this area, but that would require pushing IN to territories they do not yet control, that is invading Moldova. And they would be doing it to grab an operational dead end. What could be gained by cracking through the Moldovan lines to seize a gigantic national park? They can bring Odessa into bombardment, but with what? Will Russian ships suddenly grow bold enough to start sailing into range of Neptune batteries? And what happens in a few days when the limited forces in Transnistra and inserted by the navy ashore run low on ammunition? Will the Ukrainians just sit back and let them ship in or fly in supplies to keep up the pressure on Odessa? If the Russian forces were putting pressure on Odessa directly already I would see the utility, though Odessa is actually pretty geographically cut off with a bay to the west and a lake to the east. Only a movement from the north would have much room. Without the Odessa landbridge though, you just have Russian forces in an even worse position than they are with Crimea. Further way, lots of hostile countryside, and nowhere to go. 

Maybe I'll eat my words in a day or two and you can all say "I told you, dummy" but I personally dont see any realistic opportunity for Russian forces in this area right now. Their best bet is to tie down Ukrainian forces in Odessa, prevent them from redeploying, and hope that Moldova and Ukraine generate some kind of incident which poisons one against the other. But there are too few Russians in Transnistra and too few options navally for there to realistically be much more than missile attacks. Blowing up the bridge does however cut off Ukraine's direct access to Romania and NATOs southern flank, which would be nice for Russia. But I would think that any naval troops as yet uncommitted in the Black Sea would be better served trying to outflank Ukrainian forces in the Kherson area than go for some crazy Ivan maneuver near Odessa. Regardless with the Moskva sinking I think the RU navy and amphibious operations have no role to play in this conflict at this time. The risk from Ukraine is too high. 

[Kinophile]

@sburke, @sross112 @Huba @BeondTheGravegreat replies and clarifications, thank you.

Consider me sold.

Edited April 27, 2022 by Kinophile

[BeondTheGrave]

10 minutes ago, sburke said:

Somewhere bag in the thread (and anything more than 1 page back quickly becomes ancient history) there was a post about how the Russians prosecute air war and it seems that western perceptions of air supremacy and a proper air campaign aren't in the books.  Note there was also a question as to whether western views on air supremacy were still valid even.

Capt posted this about a hundred pages ago? Maybe two hundred now it all blurs together. He posited basically that the idea of air supremacy is impossible thanks to drones, and that even air superiority may become difficult to achieve. If I'm not butchering his point too much, the basic gist was that with drones it was becoming difficult if not impossible to really deny your enemy air space. They could always put up more drones, which were very difficult to stop, and which could attack or observe your forces at the enemies will. All airspace in this reality becomes contested rather than exist on a spectrum of domination. 

[Huba]

13 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

I dont see it as very feasible except in one situation (below). But if you look geographically Odessa cannot be cut off by destroying bridges. It has land connections to Moldova, one major arty crosses over a dam, and then of course fully half the city sits on a land bridge connecting it to the rest of Ukraine. Unless the Russian navy has developed some sort of gigantic earth mover, it cannot destroy enough infrastructure to totally cut off Odessa. The tough spot for Ukraine is that southwest of Odessa is a large tract of land, mostly national parks, which is connected to the city first by a now damaged bridge and second by several roads running through Moldova. This land could be captured. To what end I dont know. AFAIK the geography here is flat and sandy. Those lagoons feature no major port facilities. And a big chunk of landing sites would be within the range of Odessa's coastal defenses. Russia could use its Moldovan forces to try and break into this area, but that would require pushing IN to territories they do not yet control, that is invading Moldova. And they would be doing it to grab an operational dead end. What could be gained by cracking through the Moldovan lines to seize a gigantic national park? They can bring Odessa into bombardment, but with what? Will Russian ships suddenly grow bold enough to start sailing into range of Neptune batteries? And what happens in a few days when the limited forces in Transnistra and inserted by the navy ashore run low on ammunition? Will the Ukrainians just sit back and let them ship in or fly in supplies to keep up the pressure on Odessa? If the Russian forces were putting pressure on Odessa directly already I would see the utility, though Odessa is actually pretty geographically cut off with a bay to the west and a lake to the east. Only a movement from the north would have much room. Without the Odessa landbridge though, you just have Russian forces in an even worse position than they are with Crimea. Further way, lots of hostile countryside, and nowhere to go. 

Maybe I'll eat my words in a day or two and you can all say "I told you, dummy" but I personally dont see any realistic opportunity for Russian forces in this area right now. Their best bet is to tie down Ukrainian forces in Odessa, prevent them from redeploying, and hope that Moldova and Ukraine generate some kind of incident which poisons one against the other. But there are too few Russians in Transnistra and too few options navally for there to realistically be much more than missile attacks. Blowing up the bridge does however cut off Ukraine's direct access to Romania and NATOs southern flank, which would be nice for Russia. But I would think that any naval troops as yet uncommitted in the Black Sea would be better served trying to outflank Ukrainian forces in the Kherson area than go for some crazy Ivan maneuver near Odessa. Regardless with the Moskva sinking I think the RU navy and amphibious operations have no role to play in this conflict at this time. The risk from Ukraine is too high. 

On  top of all of that, UA just hit the Snake Island. If they have something that can do that in the region (BM-30 battery maybe?) I reall wissh Russians good luck in that landing zone. 

 

Edited April 27, 2022 by Huba

[sross112]

48 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Neptune antiship missiles exist, it would be a suicide run, wouldn't it?

Yes they do and apparently they work well!! But there was a lot of speculation when we were discussing them that they didn't have more than a handful. So maybe the Russian Navy thinks or knows that and if the AShM from UK isn't in place yet they might think they have a window of opportunity if they mass their fleet. 

45 minutes ago, Huba said:

To answer that in short - no way in hell they could succeed, here's why (IMO of course):

- the shore is extremely unfriendly for a landing. Either you have some cliffs (10+ meters high or more, or shore likes with just very narrow patch of land followed by a lake or enclosed bay. After landing you'd have to instantly build a bridge there. Take a closer tour on Google Earth, it is a hell for landing force. 

- the only reasonable port for your supporting forces in is Dniester estuary, 3km from UA shore, even tanks could shoot at you if you tried to land

- Neptunes

- Ukrainians still could reinforce by ferries through Dniester estuary, it's quite narrow.

- at least based on photos, bridge looked like it was really easy to fix (at least for military purposes)

- pontoon bridge can be built easily

- BMPs and the like could swim there

- in whole Budjak there are no airfields good enough to support your transport planes

- UA Airforce could show in force and bomb the crap out of you. UA could easily reinforce by heli from Odessa

It is interesting what Russians are up to, but landing in Budjak looks suicidal

Some very good points there Huba. I've never been to that region and was just looking at it on the UAWarmap not google earth. And I definitely wouldn't order it as I said, it makes no sense to me. Just gaming to see what their options are and what they might be up to.

23 minutes ago, sburke said:

With what?  All their Naval infantry units have already been committed.  More BS from the Kremlin seems like.  They are still working from the playbook that thinks people actually view the Russian military as worth a damn.  Pathetic really.

True, but several have been pulled out of the fight and not committed again yet. I'm sure they are shells of their former selves and not really combat effective but I don't see how that would stop Putin from sending them back into the grinder. I agree that their perception is very distorted compared to ours on their capability. Just provoking some thoughts.

13 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

I dont see it as very feasible except in one situation (below). But if you look geographically Odessa cannot be cut off by destroying bridges. It has land connections to Moldova, one major arty crosses over a dam, and then of course fully half the city sits on a land bridge connecting it to the rest of Ukraine. Unless the Russian navy has developed some sort of gigantic earth mover, it cannot destroy enough infrastructure to totally cut off Odessa. The tough spot for Ukraine is that southwest of Odessa is a large tract of land, mostly national parks, which is connected to the city first by a now damaged bridge and second by several roads running through Moldova. This land could be captured. To what end I dont know. AFAIK the geography here is flat and sandy. Those lagoons feature no major port facilities. And a big chunk of landing sites would be within the range of Odessa's coastal defenses. Russia could use its Moldovan forces to try and break into this area, but that would require pushing IN to territories they do not yet control, that is invading Moldova. And they would be doing it to grab an operational dead end. What could be gained by cracking through the Moldovan lines to seize a gigantic national park? They can bring Odessa into bombardment, but with what? Will Russian ships suddenly grow bold enough to start sailing into range of Neptune batteries? And what happens in a few days when the limited forces in Transnistra and inserted by the navy ashore run low on ammunition? Will the Ukrainians just sit back and let them ship in or fly in supplies to keep up the pressure on Odessa? If the Russian forces were putting pressure on Odessa directly already I would see the utility, though Odessa is actually pretty geographically cut off with a bay to the west and a lake to the east. Only a movement from the north would have much room. Without the Odessa landbridge though, you just have Russian forces in an even worse position than they are with Crimea. Further way, lots of hostile countryside, and nowhere to go. 

Maybe I'll eat my words in a day or two and you can all say "I told you, dummy" but I personally dont see any realistic opportunity for Russian forces in this area right now. Their best bet is to tie down Ukrainian forces in Odessa, prevent them from redeploying, and hope that Moldova and Ukraine generate some kind of incident which poisons one against the other. But there are too few Russians in Transnistra and too few options navally for there to realistically be much more than missile attacks. Blowing up the bridge does however cut off Ukraine's direct access to Romania and NATOs southern flank, which would be nice for Russia. But I would think that any naval troops as yet uncommitted in the Black Sea would be better served trying to outflank Ukrainian forces in the Kherson area than go for some crazy Ivan maneuver near Odessa. Regardless with the Moskva sinking I think the RU navy and amphibious operations have no role to play in this conflict at this time. The risk from Ukraine is too high. 

Right, I probably didn't articulate it properly (I ain't no good with english and grammar). I was referring to the area to the southwest of Odessa, not Odessa herself. I agree that would be even more foolish. They just started pushing towards Mykolaiv again out of Kherson so maybe this would be to divert forces from there to try to establish their land bridge? 

 

[sburke]

22 minutes ago, sross112 said:

Yes they do and apparently they work well!! But there was a lot of speculation when we were discussing them that they didn't have more than a handful. So maybe the Russian Navy thinks or knows that and if the AShM from UK isn't in place yet they might think they have a window of opportunity if they mass their fleet. 

If the Russians had reliable intel on the Neptune systems the Moskva would likely not be  a scuba diver site.    I doubt the Russians want to risk a repeat for no gain.... but I'd love to see them try.  

Edited April 27, 2022 by sburke

[akd]

Something burns in Belgorod once more:

 

[JonS]

15 minutes ago, akd said:

Something burns in Belgorod once more

Their dreams of empire?

Edited April 27, 2022 by JonS

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, JonS said:

Dreams of empire?

No, that's the stink that's coming from Belgorod

Moskova, deep strikes, smacking Snake Island, etc. are yet more examples of why time is not on Russia's side.  Every day that goes by that Ukraine isn't snuffed out is another day for them to get creative about how to hurt and humiliate Russia.  When I was poo-pooing the notion of a stalemate 1.5 months ago I have to say this sort of stuff wasn't on my mind.  I was purely focused on the immediate military implications.  But now?  Yeah, Russia needs to be very afraid of what Ukraine can do now that Russia has lost almost all forms of deterrence.

Russia really did pick the wrong fight with the wrong people.

Steve

[Kinophile]

Boy, did they ever. 

Same principal was literally how the Irish Republicans were able to infiltrate and negate British military intelligence on the island during our war of independence - plenty of WW1 vets on the Republican side with British military experience. Not harping on again but underlining the point that an enemy who can pass for you, talk like you and knows how you think and is deeply motivated is absolutely your worst nightmare. Pretty much impossible to fully defend against.

Edited April 27, 2022 by Kinophile

[Kinophile]

Already in the field, eh

 

[Splinty]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

you are just trying to kiss up to @Combatintman

He's right tho. But I'm a former NCO myself. So.....

Edited April 27, 2022 by Splinty

[Kinophile]

meh, nm. Basic.

Edited April 27, 2022 by Kinophile

[Battlefront.com]

I've had this video bookmarked for a while and am only now getting to it.  It's an interview of a captured (wounded) Russian LT in the Recon COY of 423rd Mot Rifle RGT, 4th Tank DIV, 1st Tank ARMY.  The interviewer (SBU, I'm sure EDIT!  No, just a very competent blogger with special access!) is very, very good at his job and his subjects are apparently chosen because they are ready to talk.  These videos are all FASCINATING if you haven't seen any yet.

A lot of the same story told by the low end guys.  They were not told they were going to invade until right before they moved across the border.  They were not told what their mission or objectives was once they crossed.  When asked where he was at one point he said he didn't know because he didn't have a map!  Only the regimental commander had maps!  This is a RECON UNIT and they don't know what they are not being given any sort of mission.

He also mentions that many vehicles that were supposed to be present weren't due to mechanical problems.  They were told to go as is and the vehicles would catch up later.  As the drove into Ukraine they had vehicles breaking down every 5km or so.  Their column went from about 120 vehicles down to 80 down to 25 because of breakdowns.  He mentioned mentioned overheating seemed to be a common problem. 

His vehicle broke down near a burned up tank.  A BMP was trying to push his truck out of the way but seemed to catch on fire from the burning tank?  Unclear, but what is clear is that something blew (an air tank he thinks) and the remaining trucks bolted along with the BMP, leaving him and his 5 guys alone (yup, that was the size of his "platoon").  They bailed out of the truck with nearly nothing and fled into the woods.  They tried to get picked up, but nobody was around so they walked for 3 days back towards the Russian border.  Locals, apparently with hunting weapons, surrounded them and he got hit in the face with some buckshot.  They were ordered to surrender, he complied, and all of them were taken captive.  He received medical treatment right away and it seems the sight in his eye will come back.

There was also a funny bit in there about their first encounter with Ukrainian fire while in a convoy.  Someone ahead launched a quadcopter to see what was going on and one of their own guys shot it down a few minutes later thinking it was Ukrainian.  When asked how that could happen he said not all the vehicles had coms because they were old, so some guys had no idea it was their drone.

At the very end there's an interesting bit with his mother who is either having difficulty processing that basic facts of how and why her son is in Ukraine and a POW.

In particular this LT talks about them being shown a video supposedly showing Ukrainian forces attacking across the Russian border sometime before the war started.  The discussion that follows is quite illuminating about how disconnected the logic circuits are inside the heads of Russians that their command thought "boy, it's easy to trick our soldiers".

 

[Kinophile]

Fascinating, true.

On the opposite end, from the RUSI document Operation Z:

Quote

 The VDV assault units received the plan three days before the invasion and started excitedly talking in anticipation of their daring operation. VDV commanders started discussing their primary objective at Hostomel in clear. When they landed, therefore, they were met with Ukrainian artillery and a coordinated counterattack, quickly being driven from the airport.

Amateur hour, day, week, month.. 

UKR took them at their word. 

Edited April 27, 2022 by Kinophile

[Battlefront.com]

Looks like Anonymous might have screwed around with some pressure systems at a power plant or something similar.  Personally, I've been aware of this sort of stuff since the 1990s when someone I know watched a hacker take control of room sized industrial ovens at a well known Fortune 500 company.  They could do anything they wanted with them, including turning them on full blast when people were in there for something like maintenance.