How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[dan/california]

5 minutes ago, chrisl said:

So if Ukraine doesn't cross into Russia, is having forces, especially artillery, on the border enough of a threat to make Russia pull forces from the east to block the route toward Belgorod?  From the Ukraine perspective, there are a lot of good reasons not to send troops across the border, even if they're willing to rain shells on military targets.  But from the Russia perspective, how confident can Russia be that the UA won't start driving all those captured tanks toward Moscow?

Ukr doesn't have the logistics, or the numbers to threaten Moscow. I am pretty sure they can take enough of Belgorod to utterly bleep the entire Russian campaign though. They don't have to hold it, or even really take it. Just utterly wreck the militarily useful bits. The rail yard and the oil infrastructure comes immediately to mind. Any ammo dumps they can find, of course. The question is whether or not they can just as easily take Kupiansk for 90% of the military value, and ten percent of the freakout from various corners that Putin will go nuclear.

 

[Battlefront.com]

45 minutes ago, chrisl said:

The video is the same location as the attempted Gerasimov hit about a week ago,

Damn, I thought it looked familiar.  Gotta watch those "new" video uploads.  I just saw a "new" Stunga-P video that was from more than a month ago, for example.  Oh well

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

This posted yet? Estonian analyst. Belgorod may have nothing, and rear of Russian lines may be very weak. It was really smart of the Ukrainians to push on relieving Kharkov, admittedly I was worried the JFO was gonna break but certainly if they were close but looks like it succeeded.

There is absolutely nothing going to happen with Belgorod.  That's just nutty fantasy talk there.  Ukraine has neither the forces nor the logistics to pull that off.  And even if it got there, so what?  That's a huge city... huge cities take huge investment.  Again, Ukraine doesn't have that sort of force to invest.

Plus, the second Ukrainian troops go onto Russian soil then war is declared, standing conscripts go into action immediately, and reserves are called up.

Nope, it's just not a real possibility.  Artillery fire into Russian territory targeting artillery systems that are firing into Ukraine?  Sure, but not the same thing. 

Ukraine has the option to cut (physically or through artillery) the road on its own territory, so it will go for that.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

36 minutes ago, CivE said:

I'm about ten pages behind the thread by now, but one question about terminology. Does this really count as "light" infantry? ATGMs and MANPADS are solidly in the territory of heavy weapons. The ISR capabilities are only cheap and light because the civilian communication infrastructure is intact, but in more austere or contested environments similar capabilities would require truckloads of pricey gear. Sometimes light infantry denotes units with high mobility on foot, or easy to transport, but it looks like the Ukrainian infantry is succeeding more by being everywhere ahead of time rather than dashing to where they are needed. Sometimes "light" means a smaller number of soldiers per small unit, and that fits with the two-guys in a treeline idea. So what do you mean by light infantry, and do you think it is an important distinction?

This was brought up a while back. IIRC, the gist of it was that "light" infantry is simply non-mechanized infantry. The term says nothing about what type of weaponry they carry or use.

[FancyCat]

2 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Ukr doesn't have the logistics, or the numbers to threaten Moscow. I am pretty sure they can take enough of Belgorod to utterly bleep the entire Russian campaign though. They don't have to hold it, or even really take it. Just utterly wreck the militarily useful bits. The rail yard and the oil infrastructure comes immediately to mind. Any ammo dumps they can find, of course. The question is whether or not they can just as easily take Kupiansk for 90% of the military value, and ten percent of the freakout from various corners that Putin will go nuclear.

 

Take Vovchansk if possible. Ukrainian territory, it forces Russia to relocate tons of units really far to get a frontline. Only issue is the Donets river crossings are probably blown.

[Battlefront.com]

42 minutes ago, CivE said:

I'm about ten pages behind the thread by now, but one question about terminology. Does this really count as "light" infantry? ATGMs and MANPADS are solidly in the territory of heavy weapons. The ISR capabilities are only cheap and light because the civilian communication infrastructure is intact, but in more austere or contested environments similar capabilities would require truckloads of pricey gear. Sometimes light infantry denotes units with high mobility on foot, or easy to transport, but it looks like the Ukrainian infantry is succeeding more by being everywhere ahead of time rather than dashing to where they are needed. Sometimes "light" means a smaller number of soldiers per small unit, and that fits with the two-guys in a treeline idea. So what do you mean by light infantry, and do you think it is an important distinction?

Light Infantry is, like anything, a label.  There's a famous picture of a US paratrooper (82nd Airborne IIRC) weighted down with more kit than a mule could handle.  The caption is something like "Light Infantry My Arse"

The capabilities you listed are all within the definition of traditional weaponry of Light Infantry.  In fact, US Army IBCT (Infantry Brigade Combat Teams) are heavily mechanized, but the forces are still considered "light".  In fact, the infantry uses the same basic structure as Airborne forces, just with a lot more vehicles and support units.

Steve

[chrisl]

15 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

I reckon it would be easier to reconquer a smaller town along the way to Belograd than Belograd itself. Plus, it causes a bigger Frontline than merely pushing on Belograd.

I don't think Ukraine would even consider trying to take Belgorod - it's more a question of how much is Russia going to feel like they need to defend it, just in case, and will that pressure cascade into pulling troops from Donbas to reinforce.  

All Ukraine has to do is deny the Russians the use of the rail line, and they can do that from within Ukraine.  They may also need to lob some HE across the border if the Russians decide they're going to fire arty from within Russia.

[FancyCat]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

There is absolutely nothing going to happen with Belgorod.  That's just nutty fantasy talk there.  Ukraine has neither the forces nor the logistics to pull that off.  And even if it got there, so what?  That's a huge city... huge cities take huge investment.  Again, Ukraine doesn't have that sort of force to invest.

Plus, the second Ukrainian troops go onto Russian soil then war is declared, standing conscripts go into action immediately, and reserves are called up.

Nope, it's just not a real possibility.  Artillery fire into Russian territory targeting artillery systems that are firing into Ukraine?  Sure, but not the same thing. 

Ukraine has the option to cut (physically or through artillery) the road on its own territory, so it will go for that.

Steve

Was referring to this floating rumor that Russia assembled 19 BTGs to counterattack, which if true would require Ukraine to keep significant forces facing Belograd, but if Ukraine knows that 19 is fake or just skeletons like the 2nd Guards Tank Division, that could barely defend Belograd, certainly they can pull their forces facing Belograd for the east.

I definitely think Ukraine shouldn't push into Russia proper.

[dan/california]

On further thought Belgord is probably a bridge too far, and that movie ended badly the first time. Just to get more specific about Ukraines current options, can any of Ukraines Soviet descended system hit militarily relevant parts of Belgorod from the ground they hold now? I am pretty sure the U.S. told them not to do that with any of the new stuff.

[Battlefront.com]

12 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Was referring to this floating rumor that Russia assembled 19 BTGs to counterattack, which if true would require Ukraine to keep significant forces facing Belograd, but if Ukraine knows that 19 is fake or just skeletons like the 2nd Guards Tank Division, that could barely defend Belograd, certainly they can pull their forces facing Belograd for the east.

I definitely think Ukraine shouldn't push into Russia proper.

The talk of Belgorod at all is just distracting.  "Russia is assembling 19 BTGs on its side of the border" is all that should be in the discussion.  What is behind it is irrelevant as Ukraine isn't going to attack into Russia.  Could have a couple of dudes with shotguns on the border for all it matters in that regard.

As for what these supposed 19 BTGs most likely they are spent BTGs already withdrawn from Ukraine.  Russia could reinforce them with standing conscripts because technically they are not in a warzone.  That said, having to explain to the Russian people how a "Special Military Action" could result in conscripts being killed on Russian soil would be difficult to spin.

Whatever the Russian force count, Ukraine will have to keep some forces on the border no matter what.  But a small force should suffice.  Especially because Russia won't want to keep significant forces there either.  They have lost Kharkiv and getting back into Ukraine would take a HUGE effort that they don't have the strength for.  So every soldier pulled out of Donbas to man Russian border positions is a plus for Ukraine in my view.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BTW, ISW is now advising people to take the term "BTG" with a grain of salt these days.  As we've been noting here for a couple of weeks now, there's not many BTGs in this war that actually are. 

Steve

[chrisl]

3 minutes ago, dan/california said:

On further thought Belgord is probably a bridge too far, and that movie ended badly the first time. Just to get more specific about Ukraines current options, can any of Ukraines Soviet descended system hit militarily relevant parts of Belgorod from the ground they hold now? I am pretty sure the U.S. told them not to do that with any of the new stuff.

It's 40-ish km from the border to the outskirts of Belgorod.  A quick look says that the old 152 mm guns don't go much more than 30 km.  I don't think they have any kind short/medium range cruise missiles that they could use, so they probably aren't going to be able to hit Belgorod with anything but helicopters and aircraft.  It's more a question of how much Putin will freak out at the thought of it, realistic or not.

[Offshoot]

33 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

 

First Crossing

YELLOW was the original bridge.  You can see it is inline with the approach road and saw significant vehicle traffic.  At least three AFVs were destroyed on the far bank when the bridge was destroyed.

At the same time they swam vehicles from where BLUE is situated.  These landed around the area that RED crossed to.  You can see three AFVs that were destroyed there.

I'm not sure that is the case. I posted a side by side comparison before (but messed up the embed) of the two shown stages and by the time the first bridge(s) are down, there doesn't look like there has been much if any activity from the blue crossing. I agree it looks like they also tried a bridge at yellow.

It seems I don't know how to embed an image file (the box goes red when I paste a URL from an image host into it). Here's the link again anyway:

https://ibb.co/rcBtbS3

Edited May 12, 2022 by Offshoot

[dan/california]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The talk of Belgorod at all is just distracting.  "Russia is assembling 19 BTGs on its side of the border" is all that should be in the discussion.  What is behind it is irrelevant as Ukraine isn't going to attack into Russia.  Could have a couple of dudes with shotguns on the border for all it matters in that regard.

As for what these supposed 19 BTGs most likely they are spent BTGs already withdrawn from Ukraine.  Russia could reinforce them with standing conscripts because technically they are not in a warzone.  That said, having to explain to the Russian people how a "Special Military Action" could result in conscripts being killed on Russian soil would be difficult to spin.

Whatever the Russian force count, Ukraine will have to keep some forces on the border no matter what.  But a small force should suffice.

Steve

Steve you clearly think Ukraine even seriously threatening even a feint on Russian territory is a very bad idea. Do you think Belarus enjoys the same "political immunity" for lack of a better term. I can envision a scenario where all Russian forces outside of the 2/24 lines have been smashed or left, Ukraine is liberating the Donbas, and Putin STILL won't stop launching cruise missiles at random civilian targets or lift the Black Sea blockade. Do you think Ukraine has an option to threaten Belarus if Putin doesn't stand down? 

 

[chrisl]

4 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

I'm not sure that is the case. I posted a side by side comparison before (but messed up the embed) of the two shown stages and by the time the first bridge(s) are down, there doesn't look like there has been much if any activity from the blue crossing. I agree it looks like they also tried a bridge at yellow.

It seems I don't know how to embed an image file (the box goes red when I paste a URL from an image host into it). Here's the link again anyway:

https://ibb.co/rcBtbS3

It looks like all the tracks by the blue crossing are from clearing the brush to get the bridge segments in - it's very brushy still when there's the one collapsed bridge, but has been scraped pretty clean for the second one to go in.

[FancyCat]

I'm quite curious as to how important the loss of the rail line is, and if it's replaceable. Linked is a website detailing Russian rail networks, tho seems dated to 2014 so may be inaccurate.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~yopopov/rrt/railroadmaps/

There is a rail line to Kupiansk from Valuyki on the Russian side. Lot of distance to get anything from Belgrod to Valuyki.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~yopopov/rrt/railroadmaps/07-06_belgorod.gif

Also has a neat map of Ukraine 2014: look at the rail network in Eastern Ukraine, how developed it is vs the rest of Ukraine then.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~yopopov/rrt/railroadmaps/ukraine_crimea_moldova_en.html

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

13 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

I'm not sure that is the case. I posted a side by side comparison before (but messed up the embed) of the two shown stages and by the time the first bridge(s) are down, there doesn't look like there has been much if any activity from the blue crossing. I agree it looks like they also tried a bridge at yellow.

It seems I don't know how to embed an image file (the box goes red when I paste a URL from an image host into it). Here's the link again anyway:

https://ibb.co/rcBtbS3

 

Maybe this closeup will show you what you are missing.  You can clearly see two sunken bridge sections that correspond EXACTLY to the remaining RED bridge pieces and to the obvious other departure point.

No doubt there was two bridges here.  The video I posted shows only RED.  This means BLUE hadn't been set up yet and YELLOW was already gone as there's no sign of it at all.  As I said, pieces of YELLOW still on the close bank were likely used to create RED and the hasty hacked path to RED underscores it was not the original site.

[Battlefront.com]

12 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Steve you clearly think Ukraine even seriously threatening even a feint on Russian territory is a very bad idea.

No, I think it is obviously outside of Ukraine's capabilities and Russia surely knows it.  So tying up even one extra Ukrainian soldier to make a charade that Russia isn't going to bite on is a waste.

12 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Do you think Belarus enjoys the same "political immunity" for lack of a better term. I can envision a scenario where all Russian forces outside of the 2/24 lines have been smashed or left, Ukraine is liberating the Donbas, and Putin STILL won't stop launching cruise missiles at random civilian targets or lift the Black Sea blockade. Do you think Ukraine has an option to threaten Belarus if Putin doesn't stand down?

From what I can tell nothing on Belarus soil is coming into Ukraine.  At most there's cruise missiles launched by aircraft over Belarus airspace.  Though I've not heard of any specific ones lately, so maybe that's all done as well.

So until Belarus seems to be entering the war, there's no reason to mess with it.  I'd put the likelihood of Belarus doing anything to Ukraine at whatever would come just below EXTREMELY UNLIKELY.  Not zero, but just about there.

Ukraine has real things to worry about, like 100+ thousand murderous Russian forces raping and pillaging its territory.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

13 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

I'm quite curious as to how important the loss of the rail line is, and if it's replaceable. Linked is a website detailing Russian rail networks, tho seems dated to 2014 so may be inaccurate.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~yopopov/rrt/railroadmaps/

There is a rail line to Kupiansk from Valuyki on the Russian side. Lot of distance to get anything from Belgrod to Valuyki.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~yopopov/rrt/railroadmaps/07-06_belgorod.gif

Also has a neat map of Ukraine 2014: look at the rail network in Eastern Ukraine, how developed it is vs the rest of Ukraine then.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~yopopov/rrt/railroadmaps/ukraine_crimea_moldova_en.html

 

 

Any loss of logistics capacity between Belgorod and Ukraine is going to worsen Russia's war effort.  If the freight rail line that passes through Vovchans'k is even still active (might be knocked out for all we know) then it would be good to cut it.  It's now within easy artillery range (about 10km from edge of suspected frontllne).

Steve

[Offshoot]

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Maybe this closeup will show you what you are missing.  You can clearly see two sunken bridge sections that correspond EXACTLY to the remaining RED bridge pieces and to the obvious other departure point.

No doubt there was two bridges here.  The video I posted shows only RED.  This means BLUE hadn't been set up yet and YELLOW was already gone as there's no sign of it at all.  As I said, pieces of YELLOW still on the close bank were likely used to create RED and the hasty hacked path to RED underscores it was not the original site.

Sorry, my post wasn't clear. I agree that there were three crossings. I don't, however, think that they swam vehicles from the Russian side of blue as there is no real sign of traffic there at a point when yellow and red have already been destroyed.

[sburke]

11 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Maybe this closeup will show you what you are missing.  You can clearly see two sunken bridge sections that correspond EXACTLY to the remaining RED bridge pieces and to the obvious other departure point.

No doubt there was two bridges here.  The video I posted shows only RED.  This means BLUE hadn't been set up yet and YELLOW was already gone as there's no sign of it at all.  As I said, pieces of YELLOW still on the close bank were likely used to create RED and the hasty hacked path to RED underscores it was not the original site.

I like what appears to be a submersible AFV just below the bottom right-hand corner of red. What a clusterfk..  

[Battlefront.com]

12 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

Sorry, my post wasn't clear. I agree that there were three crossings. I don't, however, think that they swam vehicles from the Russian side of blue as there is no real sign of traffic there at a point when yellow and red have already been destroyed.

There's a huge amount of traffic on the near side where BLUE starts and it's far wider than even three bridge widths.  So clearly they went into the water there as there are zero signs of any bridge from that area to the far shore.  The logical place for them to show up is where RED came ashore on the far bank.  It's downstream and obviously the bank is favorable there as they put YELLOW, RED, and planned on BLUE getting there as well.  That indicates the bare bank upstream on the near side was not good for some reason (steepness and/or sandiness likely).

Steve

[Gpig]

In all this discussion on the bridge crossings, I've missed what direction the Russians were attempting to cross in the pictures above..

Are the photos oriented as North being top of picture?

Based on the big strat maps, the Russians would have been trying to cross the river from North West to South East. (left to right, in the images above). But the tanks and wrecks all seem to be pointed south in the pictures, as if having crossed from top to bottom in the pics.

Assuming(!) the top right bank of the river is East, wouldn't the tanks be pointed / driving in that direction (bottom to top)?

Any help?

Edited May 12, 2022 by Gpig
adding text

[Combatintman]

2 hours ago, SeinfeldRules said:

There's a lot of interesting "behind the scenes" stuff that's described too, that isn't captured in a photo or video on Twitter. It's really easy to assume a drone caught them in the open and rained down fire on them, but in reality it was a combination of IPB, ground reconnaissance, and good direction to allow units to cue in on what they needed to. The difficulty they had in actually seeing them was also interesting to me, it seems the Russians made a concerted effort to actually conceal the operation, with their burning of the forest and utilization of smoke. An obvious tactic, but again, not captured in a series of photos on Twitter. They might have actually gotten really close to securing a foothold, if they had troops across and 7/8ths of the bridge complete. Could have been a near run thing. One other thing I found interesting, notice the dates he lists - it seems the majority of combat took over a day to play out, starting with the artillery barrage the morning of the 8th and the Russians culminating the morning of the 9th, with the final destruction of the bridge on the 10th. Hard to understand that timeline without his little vignette. I definitely got the impression all that stuff was wiped out in one massive barrage. Fascinating stuff!

Exactly - the point I wanted to highlight, given my particular trade, is the use of IPB.  It is an effective tool, particularly when you can draw on the expertise of SMEs - in this case a combat engineer who knows the detail on the river and bank conditions.  From there, as an analyst, once you narrow down the likely crossing sites you can start refining your NAIs and TAIs.  He also discusses the likely enemy assets needed to cross that gap and that allows you to work out the echelon you're facing and where that equipment might come from and how it will get to where it needs to be.  This allows you to add more NAIs to locate them and TAIs to strike them.  By knowing the equipment that is likely to be used you can then give clearer direction to your ISR assets - in this instance look for boats.  If deemed a High Payoff Target (HPT) then you are looking to strike that/those asset(s).  There was also some good detail about timings as well as time estimates.

A lot of people outside the intelligence trade seem to think that good tactical intelligence is enabled by super secret technical whizzbangery.  In fact it isn't - it is essentially a speed-time-distance problem that you are solving based on a knowledge of the enemy's orbat/likely orbat and the area of operations.  This is almost a classic case study of how to do this and how, if done competently (as in this case), tactical intelligence provides the decision support to get inside the enemy's OODA loop and to defeat him.

Edited May 12, 2022 by Combatintman

[LongLeftFlank]

37 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Maybe this closeup will show you what you are missing.  You can clearly see two sunken bridge sections that correspond EXACTLY to the remaining RED bridge pieces and to the obvious other departure point.

No doubt there was two bridges here.  The video I posted shows only RED.  This means BLUE hadn't been set up yet and YELLOW was already gone as there's no sign of it at all.  As I said, pieces of YELLOW still on the close bank were likely used to create RED and the hasty hacked path to RED underscores it was not the original site.

Terrific analysis here, all, although it's hard to keep up with all of it!

There's a famous aerial photo I can't locate showing (I think) a Russian mech corps trapped at a river crossing at (I think) Vyazma, 1941. Acres of shattered wrecks.

Quite the replay we're seeing here today.