How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[LongLeftFlank]

9 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The tactical shortcomings are there for everyone to see, and we have talked a lot about strategic; however, it is the operational level of warfare that is a complete train wreck for the RA in this war as well.

Well don't feel sad (no don't feeeel saaad) because none outta three ain't bad....

-- Meat Loaf (RIP)

[chrisl]

I found a twitter post last night that geolocated the maybe-precision artillery attack.

 

The image from google is the approximate area of the barrage, with the building marked with a pin.  30 rounds fired completely randomly into the area would have about a half percent chance of hitting the building.  But the right area to use is the error circle for a single gun.  I don't have a lot of artillery documentation and I'm lazy, so I just looked up the performance of a NATO 155 shell.  Wikipedia says that unguided it has a 50% error circle of 267 m.  When I scaled off the image capture, it conveniently turned out to be about 1 m/px, so the building looks to be about 6x24 m, and the chances of scoring a direct hit somewhere on the building after 30 shots are about 2%, assuming uniform distribution within the CEP.  That was first shot, dead center.  The Excalibur page gives a 4 m CEP, giving about a 55% chance of hitting the building with one round, again assuming uniform distribution of error within the CEP.  Advertised performance of the M1156 PGK is only slightly worse.  So if someone had given me a few hundred precision guided shells along with a few tens of thousands unguided and I knew where the head of EW for the Russian forces was, I'd certainly load one up and hide the fact that I had it with a nice barrage over the area.  If I had multiple varieties, I'd use the best one on the building and some slightly less good ones to make sure I hit the parking lot and maybe the end of the woods where a defensive position might be.

[Haiduk]

30th mech.brigade's 2S1 howitzer hit enemy BTR

 

[Harmon Rabb]

33 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

See my post above, today he has departed to Russia, not injured. Author of "sensation" - Anton Gerashchenko on own TG Pravda_Gerashchenko. He is former advisor of former Minister of internal affairs. And his unverified information was shared throughout social networks and even respectable media. All want a good news. But Gerashchenko already not for the first time issues "victorious news". 

 That news did seem a little too good to be true.

[chrisl]

20 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Golly, this whole thing almost feels like there's some dictator w no real military experience directing everything from far away w/o really understanding the reality of the situation -- strengths, terrain, LOC, etc.  Yeah, almost looks like the work of a very desperate amateur. 

A very desperate amateur who probably should have at least bought a copy of CMBS and played a few dozen games against people who wouldn't lose to keep from getting fired (or shot).

[Battlefront.com]

45 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Hard to tell, those could be blast marks on the right hand picture.  Bridge like this would not take much to bounce off its abatements by the look.

I thought about this marks, but I think they are just water/mineral stains.

Adding to what hcrof wrote, looks to me that concrete was the primary material used for both the bridge and the supports.  I am not a structural engineer by any stretch of the imagination, but there's plenty of failing early 20th century concrete bridges around me that are failing.  Pretty easy to see what happens to structural integrity over time.

To me it looks like the shoulder concrete gave way and the bridge "slipped" off its supports.  Notice how the crushed stone from the rail bed is all neatly cascaded down over the horizontal surfaces and then to the ravine.  I don't know that we'd see such neatness if there had been an explosion.

Again, even in advanced Western countries there's a huge problem with early/mid 20th century infrastructure being on the critical list.  And this is stuff that has most likely seen at least regular maintenance and adherence to safety parameters.  Therefore, it should be expected that Russia is worse off.  They will likely see things like this happening on a regular basis even without pesky people putting 'splody things underneath them.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

48 minutes ago, sburke said:

I think you meant this article.     Madison just can't seem to remember he's wandering around with a loaded weapon.  Probably will forget he has it if he ever does need it.

Hacktivists and cybercriminals wreak havoc in Russia - The Washington Post

heh!  Oops.  I corrected my original post.  Ironically, I hadn't (and still haven't) read the article I originally linked to.

Steve

[hcrof]

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I thought about this marks, but I think they are just water/mineral stains.

Adding to what hcrof wrote, looks to me that concrete was the primary material used for both the bridge and the supports.  I am not a structural engineer by any stretch of the imagination, but there's plenty of failing early 20th century concrete bridges around me that are failing.  Pretty easy to see what happens to structural integrity over time.

To me it looks like the shoulder concrete gave way and the bridge "slipped" off its supports.  Notice how the crushed stone from the rail bed is all neatly cascaded down over the horizontal surfaces and then to the ravine.  I don't know that we'd see such neatness if there had been an explosion.

Again, even in advanced Western countries there's a huge problem with early/mid 20th century infrastructure being on the critical list.  And this is stuff that has most likely seen at least regular maintenance and adherence to safety parameters.  Therefore, it should be expected that Russia is worse off.  They will likely see things like this happening on a regular basis even without pesky people putting 'splody things underneath them.

Steve

You made me have another look and yes, the shoulder of the concrete seems to have broken away - also there seems remarkably little rebar in such a critical location. Perhaps some building materials "went missing" before they arrived on site.

Another thing I noticed is that the embankment seems to be recently eroded and very muddy. This would support my hypothesis of foundation failure - if they had recently cleared away some vegetation on the bank then a good rainstorm might have been the straw that broke the camels back. So: primary cause of failure was foundation failure, exacerbated by poor design/construction. 

[LongLeftFlank]

Wow, there are folks out there still seriously worried about 'encirclement' (and based on the replies, others hoping it's gonna happen, annnny dayyy nowwww).... 

 

[DesertFox]

Uups...

 

 

[sross112]

6 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

Uups...

 

 

Definitely an unsecured load. Another example of either shoddy training (never taught to secure load) or a lack of professionalism (knowing and not securing). 

[Combatintman]

22 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Wow, there are folks out there still seriously worried about 'encirclement' (and based on the replies, others hoping it's gonna happen, annnny dayyy nowwww).... 

 

Nonetheless, it it a possible indicator.  All I can say about Lyman from the Russian perspective is "good luck with that."  That is at least a four to five BTG job if contested.  On current tempo we are looking at something rocking up there in two days' time.

Edited May 1, 2022 by Combatintman

[akd]

Newly-mobilized D/LNR 1117th Rifle Battalion:

 

[dan/california]

9 minutes ago, akd said:

Newly-mobilized D/LNR 1117th Rifle Battalion:

 

Rifles from the Great Patriotic War, to go with the propaganda from the Great Patriotic War. Wait until the find out about the rations.....

[danfrodo]

14 minutes ago, akd said:

Newly-mobilized D/LNR 1117th Rifle Battalion:

 

Holy Moly!  is that a BOLT ACTION rifle?  I thought Dan/CA was kidding at first about WW2 weapons.  I guess not. 

[Battlefront.com]

47 minutes ago, hcrof said:

You made me have another look and yes, the shoulder of the concrete seems to have broken away - also there seems remarkably little rebar in such a critical location. Perhaps some building materials "went missing" before they arrived on site.

I was thinking the same thing!  When a chunk of concrete fell off a 1920s bridge near me at least we saw plenty of rebar.  Bridge is scheduled to be replaced, thankfully.

47 minutes ago, hcrof said:

Another thing I noticed is that the embankment seems to be recently eroded and very muddy. This would support my hypothesis of foundation failure - if they had recently cleared away some vegetation on the bank then a good rainstorm might have been the straw that broke the camels back. So: primary cause of failure was foundation failure, exacerbated by poor design/construction. 

Yeah, that looks like the root cause.  If the main supports shifted only a little, the point of failure might have shifted just enough that a subsequent heavy load cause the concrete corner to give way.  One of the primary problems with concrete is that it is prone to catastrophic structural failure.  Hence steel reinforcement being rather important

Steve

[akd]

9 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Holy Moly!  is that a BOLT ACTION rifle?  I thought Dan/CA was kidding at first about WW2 weapons.  I guess not. 

These are the battalion “snipers.”  You can see such “snipers” in action in Mariupol here:

 

[Battlefront.com]

26 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

Nonetheless, it it a possible indicator.  All I can say about Lyman from the Russian perspective is "good luck with that."  That is at least a four to five BTG job if contested.  On current tempo we are looking at something rocking up there in two days' time.

I think this is yet another case of people getting confused between Russia's intentions and Russia's capabilities.  The two are routinely not related, yet to the uninformed they don't see the disconnection.

Another example is the YouTuber that makes the excellent daily summaries of the frontline continually talks about the "southern pincer" and yet in reality there is none.  Local breakthrough that has no strategic capacity to do squat.  That's not a pincer, that's a pipe dream.

This is like early on when Russia kept doing it's stupid airborne operations.  The uninformed said "Russia is planning on taking X by storm!" and the informed people said "well, that was a stupid waste of resources".

It was pretty clear what Russia wanted to achieve with the Easter Offensive.  We thought they had no chance of achieving it, no matter what their intentions were.  Within a couple of days it was clear that they weren't going to get very far.

Steve

[Homer The Doomer]

54 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

Uups...

 

 

That's footage from 2014, however the point about training still stands...

[Battlefront.com]

Another example of not doing the math comes from the otherwise excellent postings of Jomini of the West Twitter feed:

Quote

Russian forces maintain a steady yet grinding pace in gaining ground against Ukrainian forces along the Siverskyi Donets Line. If steady success can be maintained, Russian troops may be able to achieve a breakthrough in the coming weeks.

Coming WEEKS?  The offensive is already effectively over and the ToDo List for a "breakthrough" is not even close to being met.

This is the difference between looking at a rough topo map and thinking that what Russia might want is equivalent to what Russia might get.  There's no apparent consideration for the tactical problems caused by terrain and resources (time is a resource, BTW).  We've been saying since before the offensive started that this area is a really tough place to fight and Russian forces have so far shown no ability to rise to that sort of challenge.  On the other hand, Ukraine has proven time and time again that this is the sort of fight it likes and often winds up winning.

Steve

[c3k]

1 hour ago, akd said:

Newly-mobilized D/LNR 1117th Rifle Battalion:

 

If that is not the bottom of the barrel, it's only one scrape away from being there.

Do you think they realize what their life expectancy is on the front lines?

[Combatintman]

17 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Another example of not doing the math comes from the otherwise excellent postings of Jomini of the West Twitter feed:

Coming WEEKS?  The offensive is already effectively over and the ToDo List for a "breakthrough" is not even close to being met.

This is the difference between looking at a rough topo map and thinking that what Russia might want is equivalent to what Russia might get.  There's no apparent consideration for the tactical problems caused by terrain and resources (time is a resource, BTW).  We've been saying since before the offensive started that this area is a really tough place to fight and Russian forces have so far shown no ability to rise to that sort of challenge.  On the other hand, Ukraine has proven time and time again that this is the sort of fight it likes and often winds up winning.

Steve

Thanks Steve ... in my trade threat = capability vs intent.  As we have both pointed out once or twice ... there is one half of that sum that is absent.

[sburke]

Nice response to Putin about threats.

Kinzinger introduces AUMF to defend Ukraine if Russia uses chemical, biological, nuclear weapons (msn.com)

[Battlefront.com]

19 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

Thanks Steve ... in my trade threat = capability vs intent.  As we have both pointed out once or twice ... there is one half of that sum that is absent.

To me it's no different than any number of things Russian where people accept Russia's stated goals as reasonable/probable without examining if they can be realistically achieved.

For example, the T-14 Armata tank.  Here's a slimmed down and reordered version of what Wikipedia has for its development history:

Quote

The Armata combat platform has been under design and development since 2009

The first vehicles were shown to the public in the 2015 Moscow Victory Day Parade

Russian media has previously stated that mass delivery will start in 2015or 2016.

In December 2019, Russian Deputy Minister of Defense Alexei Krivoruchko reported delays with the development and production, with the first batch of five vehicles available for state-conducted testing expected "in the next month or two".

In 2017, the order was scaled back to a test batch of 100 tanks by 2020, with the program extended to 2025.

A total of 2,300 MBTs were expected to be supplied by 2020

Pretty clearly no significant production has happened in the 7 years since it was supposed to start.  Even more telling is that there's no update on production plans now that the 2020 target was clearly off by about 2275 or so.

I remember arguing with people back in 2014/2015 that Russia would likely not have any meaningful numbers in use by 2020 or even 2022.  Sure, I took Russia's intent to have tons of them made very seriously, but I snickered at the thought that they actually could.  And guess what?

Steve

[Haiduk]

41 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Holy Moly!  is that a BOLT ACTION rifle?  I thought Dan/CA was kidding at first about WW2 weapons.  I guess not. 

@akd

They had one sniper per company in 1st platoon. Rifle battalion had 4 companies, so four snipers should be. But they could to change structure due to combat experience - for example to increase number of snipers and move them to their own unit like a sniper squad. 

Our General Staff claimed Russians is moving to Izium axis about 1000 LDPR conscripts. Maybe this battalion will go there too. 

In Donetsk the weird thing happened - local symphonic orchestra was invited as if for TV filming, but when they gathered, DPR militaries gave them all mobilization notices. So, soon whole orchestra almost without training (most of them never took a weapon in the hands)  was sent to frontline. In present time knowingly already three KIA among them, including the conductor of orchestra.