How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

6 minutes ago, akd said:

Bit more on this: apparently occurred 6km outside Mariupol on May 6th.  Would be very interesting to know what happened here.

Someone dropped a cigarette, because according to all those maps, that is Russian controlled territory?  Well, at least we know that crew did not feel a thing.

[cyrano01]

50 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Very good questions.  And nothing wrong with Clausewitz, so long as one does not accept that his was the final word.

I think one has to attack that light infantry system along its length as well.  Cutting off supplies of relatively cheap ATGMs, and MANPADS, along with ISR (I have no doubt Russia would love to cut those western ISR feeds if they could), or all data for that matter, is a very important step.  This would push the ranges and lethality of that infantry back to "harassment" levels. 

The CoG for this sort of defence also appears to be "integration and synchronization".  Light infantry in ones and twos are a nuisance even with this weaponry.  It is when they are linked and can get out in front of an attacker, due in large part to info superiority, that they become something else.  If you can make that "two-guys in a treeline...in isolation" then I think we would be onto something.

Airpower, yeesh.  Some of those MANPADs we equipped the UA with have ranges up to 23,000 feet; that is also nuts.  So high altitudes are likely still where we can operate freely; however, integrating airpower way up there to ground level will be the challenge.  

And I think this raises a very important point.  What about UA offence?  I am not sure if they are employing this light infantry approach on the attack.  Something is definitely happening up around Kharkiv, but it is not clear if this is more traditional conventional operations or if they are doing something else.  I am not sure how we would employ this on the offence, I suspect it may be that Infiltrate, Isolate, Destroy idea, but I would want to see it in action.  I think if one employed the "simultaneous slow grinding pressure" idea until your opponent cracks, you could then swing back toward conventional offence.  Right up to the point an opponent started using distributed light infantry defence in depth, then you become the hunted, not the hunter.  This makes for a very interesting dynamic.

Very good questions.  And nothing wrong with Clausewitz, so long as one does not accept that his was the final word.

Figured I ought to get something out of having to read On War, that term my nights belonged to Charlie. Still I suspect that reading Clausewitz for military history students is like eating greens for small children, necessary to alllow you to grow up big and strong...

I think one has to attack that light infantry system along its length as well.  Cutting off supplies of relatively cheap ATGMs, and MANPADS, along with ISR (I have no doubt Russia would love to cut those western ISR feeds if they could), or all data for that matter, is a very important step.  This would push the ranges and lethality of that infantry back to "harassment" levels. 

Absolutely. Doubly so for the bigger, heavier things that enable the DLI defence (Diffuse Light Infantry - apologies to the Durham Light Infantry) to hit you at the longer distances you were mentioning earlier. All those artillery shells and longer range rockets have to be moved somehow.

And I think this raises a very important point.  What about UA offence?  I am not sure if they are employing this light infantry approach on the attack.  Something is definitely happening up around Kharkiv, but it is not clear if this is more traditional conventional operations or if they are doing something else.  I am not sure how we would employ this on the offence, I suspect it may be that Infiltrate, Isolate, Destroy idea, but I would want to see it in action.  I think if one employed the "simultaneous slow grinding pressure" idea until your opponent cracks, you could then swing back toward conventional offence.  Right up to the point an opponent started using distributed light infantry defence in depth, then you become the hunted, not the hunter.  This makes for a very interesting dynamic.

This is what I am struggling to get my head around. In any case, even if the Ukrainians are using a DLI offense around Karkhiv, and prepared to accept slow progress, they are doing so against a Russian army that can't resort to the DLI paradigm because they don't have the capability. It doesn't really solve the problem for Western armies who do, fighting against opponents who also do. Is this leading to relative battlefield stasis with the ability to make slow advances going to the side that can best integrate good light infantry with ISR driven, responsive long range supporting fires (massed or precision according to target and circumstances)?  Not going to play well with the Shock and Awe set I fear.

Airpower, yeesh.  Some of those MANPADs we equipped the UA with have ranges up to 23,000 feet; that is also nuts.  So high altitudes are likely still where we can operate freely; however, integrating airpower way up there to ground level will be the challenge.

Seriously this!  Perhaps the air power of the future is more about expendable UAVs that you don't really expect to get back? Although, as SeinfeldRules observed, surely it is only a matter of time until the anti-drone measures start to develop and when they do does that enable you to fracture your opponents ISR bubble and undermine the long range bit of his DLI defence? I'm quite taken with a drone, Fokker scourge.

More seriously and immediately, the obvious outcome of the more capable MANPADS/SHORADS is that air power is forced up and deep. If you have suppressed the high altitude air defences is there any way you can leverage that to fracture the enemy's ability to resist? Dark thought (for a wishy-washy western liberal) does that mean we are back to the strategic air power paradigm and trying to use that to destroy the enemy economy or starve their population. Neither quick nor something that sits well morally even if it could be done, which has to be open to serious doubt.

 

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by cyrano01

[chuckdyke]

3 minutes ago, cyrano01 said:

Clausewitz

What I understand is when you fight a limited war be prepared to go to total war otherwise don't be involved. With the likes of putin you can't afford to bluf. 

[Haiduk]

Ukraine received ammunition for AZP-57 AA-guns of S-60 complex and could re-activate this equipment. First guns were mounted on KRAZ trucks and servicemen of Kharkiv TD brigade have been conducting practice.  

Since we have received FRAG and AP ammunition AZP-57 can be useful as AA-gun against UAVs and against light armor. But there is single issue - the recoil of gun is too strong for guntruck usage, so it can affect on accuracy if don't use stops

Probably each TD brigade will receive AZP-57 guntrucks if required quantity will find in storages. Ukraine has some number of S-60 complexes from Soviet times, but all ammuition to its was either sold out or utilized.

Video of firing

 

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by Haiduk

[chuckdyke]

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by chuckdyke

[Haiduk]

US Azov fighter (or volunteer) Gryan got killed in Mariupol. He sneaked to the city when it was already encircled, fought together with Azov, was wounded, but rejected to evacuate on helicopter, when they could fly to the port and continued to fight after some treatmnent

 

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, cyrano01 said:

surely it is only a matter of time until the anti-drone measures start to develop and when they do does that enable you to fracture your opponents ISR bubble and undermine the long range bit of his DLI defence?

I think this is going to remain a competitive space to be honest.  I don't see us being able to put unmanned back in the box after this war, there is to much to gain.  That, and all the technology to try and knock UAVs out of the air is competing with the technology to keep them there.  I have heard a lot of C-UAV discussion going on for about 10 years, and we have developed capability; however, UAV technology keeps sidestepping it. 

For example, jamming.  We simply cut the link between operator and system...system falls out of sky...celebrate.  Automation is way ahead of that.  If we can have self-driving cars, completely autonomous UAVs are already here.  That means there is no link to cut, the damn things can simply fly on there own.  "What about weapons release...we still need a man-in-the-loop!".  Sure we do but they do not...that is a race to the bottom in the making.  We are likely going to see fully autonomous hunter killer drones out of China (if they do not already have them) immediately after this war.

The there is "fry the thing in the air" with EM/lasers/masers/phasers.  Really hard to find them in the first place, they can be shielded and direct energy weapons are way behind on miniaturization, as well as being highly visible...because of all that energy.  Fine if one is facing ISIL and Amazon Drone Air Corp, something else against a peer-adversary.

My bet is c-drone will be other drones...again fully autonomous hunter killers designed for anti-drone work.  This opens up an entirely new phase of warfare, unmanned battle.  Further, it will likely also include UGVs in the very near future as well.  So land warfare has a synthetic phase, followed by a biological phase - weird.  The contest will likely be "how many drones to expend in that phase and how many to leave in reserve".  I would no be surprise to see an Unmanned Systems commander on the field before too long.  And then there are integral unmanned systems, micro-stuff, that is going to be incredibly hard to suppress.  Some of these are backpack sized and can fly for kms.

And then even if you do crack the unmanned ISR bubble, you have space to contend with.  Some of the satellite stuff we have seen is incredibly hi resolution, down to individual tanks.  We don't have a realistic space superiority concept that I know of (talk about something that briefs well).

All this to say that against  peer-adversary, I am not sure we can fully blind them at range.  We may be able to throw sand in their eyes but I think we need to be really careful with assumptions that we can sustain it.  I suspect that anti-missile and indirect fire technology will also get a boost, so Iron Dome IV or somesuch, that can shield at a tactical level.  This one is probably a ways off but this might mean we are trying to blind and overload automated shield systems.  Such a system would negate this DLI thing, or at least the version we see, as all those ATGM could theoretically be swatted from the air.  But then we are back to smarter ATGMs with micro-sub munitions, nano-treated explosives.  Anyway, it is likely going to be a bumpy ride is my point.

[billbindc]

3 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

For example, jamming.  We simply cut the link between operator and system...system falls out of sky...celebrate.  Automation is way ahead of that.  If we can have self-driving cars, completely autonomous UAVs are already here.  That means there is no link to cut, the damn things can simply fly on there own.  "What about weapons release...we still need a man-in-the-loop!".  Sure we do but they do not...that is a race to the bottom in the making.  We are likely going to see fully autonomous hunter killer drones out of China (if they do not already have them) immediately after this war.

Getting into my bailiwick here on self driving and autonomous vehicles and I can tell you...the navigation problems inherent in combat systems are an order of magnitude easier than in a self driving, public street platform. For starters, most of these systems will be to one degree or another disposable. Second, you are much less worried about damaging things on a battlefield. Third, you have no passengers that matter other than the ordinance you are attempting to deliver. Finally, while both systems have the similar routing and nav needs, self driving cars must concentrate on accident avoidance while UAV's are designed essentially for *accident completion*. The revolution in a sense has already happened, it just wants for widespread application.

[dan/california]

7 hours ago, SeinfeldRules said:

Right now there is certainly an equipment gap when it comes to dealing with UAVs that is making things difficult, but a slow, poorly armored aircraft, with limited sensors and payloads, and a critical requirement to maintain comms to do its mission, and that has no effective means of cover or concealment and relies solely on a small signature and distance for survivability, certainly strikes me as system with vulnerabilities. Drones may be cheaper then manned aircraft but there is a limit on how many can be shot down before UAV operators have to start changing their tactics.

Both here, and with the comment about how radar sees mortar shells easily, you actually point out why drones break/defeat so many current radar systems. Drones are slow, for eighty years everything radar has been trying to find is fast, or faster than that. So the easy way to turn your screen from an unintelligible mass of interference into something you can work with is to filter out everything below say a 100 mph just to pick a number. It is a nontrivial problem to rework this, and difficult for existing systems. The Russians seem to have attempted to bleep with this filter on their current systems, and are now LITERALLY firing S300, and S400 missiles at flocks of geese, at least occasionally. Because geese and a lot of drones fly around at about the same speed. I am not saying this is not a solvable problem, but it is probably a brand new radar system sort of solution, or at least a bleep ton of reprogramming on the radars most countries use.

Drones built to hunt other drones will definitely be a thing, and missiles optimized to kill drones. 

And in noteworthy case of trying to get ahead of the problem

https://taskandpurpose.com/military-tech/army-stryker-laser-weapons-system-shorad/

Lasers are the only way to kill drones at the ranges you actually need, at a price you can afford. Who said the future wasn't cool. The should ship these to Ukraine TODAY. Make the Orlans go away and Ukraine wraps this up in half the time, and with far lower losses. Assuming these work s advertised we get back to the discussion about treating drones as ammo, instead of something you expect to use more than once.

[chuckdyke]

Drones are like the introduction of aircraft carriers during WW2. Drones will become just another munition for tanks and SP guns.  

[TheVulture]

1 minute ago, dan/california said:

The Russians seem to have attempted to bleep with this filter on their current systems, and are now LITERALLY firing S300, and S400 missiles at flocks of geese, at least occasionally. Because geese and a lot of drones fly around at about the same speed. I am not saying this is not a solvable problem, but it is probably a brand new radar system sort of solution, or at least a bleep ton of reprogramming on the radars most countries use.

And as soon as someone has a system that can target drones effectively, someone else will find a countermeasure to try and defeat that as well. Sure, you can now tell the difference between a single drone and a flock of geese. How well does it do against a squad of a dozen drones deliberately mimicking the flight pattern of a flock of geese, and with similar surface properties (feathered drones, here we come)?

[Haiduk]

National Guard isuued information about own servicemen losses since 24th Feb: 501 KIA, 1697 WIA

[Bearstronaut]

20 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I think this is going to remain a competitive space to be honest.  I don't see us being able to put unmanned back in the box after this war, there is to much to gain.  That, and all the technology to try and knock UAVs out of the air is competing with the technology to keep them there.  I have heard a lot of C-UAV discussion going on for about 10 years, and we have developed capability; however, UAV technology keeps sidestepping it. 

For example, jamming.  We simply cut the link between operator and system...system falls out of sky...celebrate.  Automation is way ahead of that.  If we can have self-driving cars, completely autonomous UAVs are already here.  That means there is no link to cut, the damn things can simply fly on there own.  "What about weapons release...we still need a man-in-the-loop!".  Sure we do but they do not...that is a race to the bottom in the making.  We are likely going to see fully autonomous hunter killer drones out of China (if they do not already have them) immediately after this war.

The there is "fry the thing in the air" with EM/lasers/masers/phasers.  Really hard to find them in the first place, they can be shielded and direct energy weapons are way behind on miniaturization, as well as being highly visible...because of all that energy.  Fine if one is facing ISIL and Amazon Drone Air Corp, something else against a peer-adversary.

My bet is c-drone will be other drones...again fully autonomous hunter killers designed for anti-drone work.  This opens up an entirely new phase of warfare, unmanned battle.  Further, it will likely also include UGVs in the very near future as well.  So land warfare has a synthetic phase, followed by a biological phase - weird.  The contest will likely be "how many drones to expend in that phase and how many to leave in reserve".  I would no be surprise to see an Unmanned Systems commander on the field before too long.  And then there are integral unmanned systems, micro-stuff, that is going to be incredibly hard to suppress.  Some of these are backpack sized and can fly for kms.

And then even if you do crack the unmanned ISR bubble, you have space to contend with.  Some of the satellite stuff we have seen is incredibly hi resolution, down to individual tanks.  We don't have a realistic space superiority concept that I know of (talk about something that briefs well).

All this to say that against  peer-adversary, I am not sure we can fully blind them at range.  We may be able to throw sand in their eyes but I think we need to be really careful with assumptions that we can sustain it.  I suspect that anti-missile and indirect fire technology will also get a boost, so Iron Dome IV or somesuch, that can shield at a tactical level.  This one is probably a ways off but this might mean we are trying to blind and overload automated shield systems.  Such a system would negate this DLI thing, or at least the version we see, as all those ATGM could theoretically be swatted from the air.  But then we are back to smarter ATGMs with micro-sub munitions, nano-treated explosives.  Anyway, it is likely going to be a bumpy ride is my point.

I gotta say, fully autonomous machines designed to kill people scares the crap outta me. It just seems like such an obviously bad idea.

[dan/california]

Intentional geese imitation, I love it.

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, Bearstronaut said:

I gotta say, fully autonomous machines designed to kill people scares the crap outta me. It just seems like such an obviously bad idea.

Minefields with wings/legs/guns...what could possibly go wrong?

[LongLeftFlank]

2 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

National Guard isuued information about own servicemen losses since 24th Feb: 501 KIA, 1697 WIA

For context, could you possibly remind us of the overall TD force size on 22 Feb and now? Round numbers, ISTR 140,000? 

[dan/california]

 

[TheVulture]

Video of Russian pontoon bridge over the Seversky Donets river that was destroyed along with several vehicles. I don't think it is the same location that we've seen in photos in recent days - the river bank terrain looks different to me (going from memory).

https://twitter.com/Arslon_Xudosi/status/1524397146480549890?s=20&t=cmaJsccBLNowidl_E1TIyQ

[dan/california]

This would amount to two full BTG more or less, yes?

[LongLeftFlank]

And for yet another day, the RA flings its dwindling troops and firepower against the UA fortified zone.

 

JasonC observed a while ago that at least since 1914, in order for artillery to be the 'killing machine', the enemy infantry needs to be compelled to leave his deep dugouts and man more vulnerable forward positions.

And to compel him, you must attack those positions, even at great cost.

That's the only method I can think of to justify this particular madness right now. Any other ideas from the bigger brains?

.....

Longtime Forumites will recall that JasonC was also very insistent on the efficacy of the strategic bombing of shopping malls, particularly using scarce precision guided weapons. So as to deprive the populace of scented candles, overpriced running shoes and other essentials, thus inexorably breaking their will to resist....

 

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

  Something is definitely happening up around Kharkiv, but it is not clear if this is more traditional conventional operations or if they are doing something else.  I am not sure how we would employ this on the offence, I suspect it may be that Infiltrate, Isolate, Destroy idea, but I would want to see it in action. 

Obviously I have no better information about what is going on around Kharkiv than any of the rest of you, but so far it looks like it might be following the counter attack strategy I outlined a couple of months ago.  It is based on the following conditions existing:

1. Enemy has expended its offensive capabilities to the point that it is reactionary only
2. Enemy has lost personnel and equipment to the point that reactionary capabilities are compromised
3. Enemy is fully demoralized, not just that "why are we here?" variety but "why are we being left to die here?" style
4. Enemy's LOCs are put under directed pressure to enhance all of the above
5. Enemy locations in depth are largely known through direct contact and remote observations

With all of these conditions met, counter attacking at the same scale as there is opportunity should be fairly straight forward isolate/destroy operation.  Use infantry to infiltrate, fix, and eliminate known concentrations of enemy where it makes the most sense, otherwise bypass to drive deeper into the enemy's rear.  Use heavy assets where terrain favors them instead of using them exclusively for breakthrough.  Use artillery to disrupt enemy movement and, whenever practical, discourage pockets aiding each other.  If you have the ability to jam/disrupt tactical communications, do it.  If you have the ability to communicate directly with the enemy, psych them out of fighting and either get them to surrender or convince them to vacate their positions.

The attack itself would be a sort of "infantry rush" where small forces infiltrate and shoot up the place from as many angles as possible.  Make it seem you are everywhere all at once.  Use even smaller forces to interdict reinforcements and generally cause chaos in the rear.  Employ heavier assets (tanks and IFVs) wherever the fighting is tougher or simply needs to be settled faster.

Once through, take as much ground as quickly as possible.  Moving faster than their decision and reaction cycles can handle minimizes the risk of over extending.  Drones and advanced recon can ensure that if there is a major enemy response it can be accounted for and not be a nasty surprise.

The entire concept here is to convince the enemy that it's pointless to fight.  Which is why the enemy has to be largely thinking along these lines before launching the attack.  Obviously a position or two might be contested heavily (that's what the heavier stuff is intended to solve), but if the majority of the enemy's line is not willing to fight then the isolated pockets of resistance shouldn't be a problem.    Trying the above against a very determined and capable enemy is unlikely to succeed.

Steve

[The_Capt]

6 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

And for yet another day, the RA flings its dwindling troops and firepower against the UA fortified zone.

JasonC observed a while ago that at least since 1914, in order for artillery to be the 'killing machine', the enemy infantry needs to be compelled to leave his deep dugouts and man more vulnerable forward positions.

And to compel him, you must attack those positions, even at great cost.

Classic attrition warfare, bocage style.
That's the only method I can think of to justify this particular madness right now. Any other ideas from the bigger brains?

Until those little micro-drones with DPICM can fly directly into those trenches and bunkers to clean house...no I think JasonC is correct.  One could try to cut off logistics, but these are deliberate defence positions with stockpiles along really long frontages, so that plan would take more time than the Russians likely have.  Tunneling?

[Battlefront.com]

38 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Getting into my bailiwick here on self driving and autonomous vehicles and I can tell you...the navigation problems inherent in combat systems are an order of magnitude easier than in a self driving, public street platform. For starters, most of these systems will be to one degree or another disposable. Second, you are much less worried about damaging things on a battlefield. Third, you have no passengers that matter other than the ordinance you are attempting to deliver. Finally, while both systems have the similar routing and nav needs, self driving cars must concentrate on accident avoidance while UAV's are designed essentially for *accident completion*. The revolution in a sense has already happened, it just wants for widespread application.

That and aerial drones (as opposed to UGVs) don't have to worry about running into things, therefore you don't need the sensor and processing power that self driving cars do.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

30 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

National Guard isuued information about own servicemen losses since 24th Feb: 501 KIA, 1697 WIA

Thank you for that update.  This is likely to be a reasonably accurate number.  Ratio is just as we would expect as well.

Steve

[cyrano01]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

That and aerial drones (as opposed to UGVs) don't have to worry about running into things, therefore you don't need the sensor and processing power that self driving cars do.

Steve

Back from cycling to the dentist, and not entirely convinced that self-driving cars are likely to be any worse than the current man-in-the-loop variety, at least the self driving sensors are likely to be switched on rather than devoted to texting or social media...need an RPG.