How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Haiduk]

5 minutes ago, Suleyman said:

It looks abandoned to me, they don't send tanks head first for recon. Must have been mission killed and abandoned.

There was a video for 4-5 of March - two Russian tanks without any cover entered to village near Brovary, east of Kyiv and just stood there near the road. UKR special police team came to village and shot out both tanks with RPG-7. This is Russia. They have many tanks. One more, one less...

Edited May 14, 2022 by Haiduk

[Haiduk]

According to statement of Serhiy Hayday, the head of Luhansk oblast military administration, Russians are preparing to new attempt of Siverskyi Donets crossing in more huge force.

I don't know this is true or not, captured Russian tanker was asked "You have seen a lot of wrecked armor, why did you go to this grinder?" And he answered: "Commanders told us this is destroyed Ukrainain vehciles and Ukrainains just put Z or O marks to demoralize us as if this is our destroyed armor"

Edited May 14, 2022 by Haiduk

[kraze]

11 minutes ago, Suleyman said:

It looks abandoned to me, they don't send tanks head first for recon. Must have been mission killed and abandoned.

russian tankers are well known for their intelligence

 

[Suleyman]

Ah, so why not just send conscripts if their professional forces make poor decisions like that. Even when I play war games like combat mission, I'm completely conscious of when my tank feels out in the open and I move it accordingly. Crazy...

https://t.me/DonbassDevushka/6685

Can any Ukrainian tell me if there is importance of this engagement? Which pontoon crossing was this. Obviously not as bad as what happened to RU forces. 

[JonS]

4 hours ago, akd said:

High res mockery:

 

According to my residential translation service:

1) Is this really the plan Ivan?
2) Ivan, are we there yet?
3) Yeah, this is it.

[keas66]

This UA Artillery  Firing solution magic ?  seems to have gone main stream - Apparently its the "Uber" of Artillery Aiming systems .

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-assisted-uber-style-technology-helped-ukraine-to-destroy-russian-battalion-5pxnh6m9p?shareToken=075c436b97ea5590e2b893dd514d2d4e&fbclid=IwAR1fMPPXwhf1gA95ku5OEzSV6s2CASZ1Bwyi4VIHefwVyTmiYkPVGUmX818

 

One thing this thread has probably revealed to me is the gap between reality and truth  presented in our MSM  even when trying to present an even picture of  a given Situation .

 

Be interested in Hearing the resident Experts take on this Times Article  . Seems like an extrapolation of  that Twitter Trent guys posts from a few days ago  which I think a few folks mentioned was overstating the case a little .?

[JonS]

On 5/13/2022 at 9:38 AM, Battlefront.com said:

The Soviets used to be very good at this stuff.  Seems Russia has forgotten how.

Is that really true, or did the Soviet military always have - in retrospect - a kind of Potemkin vibe about it?

Granted, they were very effective from early-'43 through to mid/late-'45, but 'very effective' is not exactly a synonym of 'very good.' Did the Soviets conduct any major operations after WWII? They had a couple of inconsequential and uninspiring skirmishes against the Chinese, and did about as well as anyone in Afghanistan, but other that that ...? Loads of "advisors" in Korea and Vietnam, probably advisors on both sides in Iran/Iraq, plus some AD systems here and there, but really, I can't think of anything they did that was on the scale of what the West (loosely defined) was doing in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.

Also, 'advisors'? Telling other people how they should be using their soldiers and equipment is very different to employing your own. And you know what they say about teachers - those who can, do. Those who cant, ...

Edited May 14, 2022 by JonS

[JonS]

20 minutes ago, keas66 said:

One thing this thread has probably revealed to me is the gap between reality and truth  presented in our MSM  even when trying to present an even picture of  a given Situation .

To be fair, that's not really the role of generalist media. Their job is to deliver the first draft of history in broad strokes. Specialist media, like RUSI or Janes, is for the details and analysis. Think of it this way - generalist media is like wikipedia, while specialist media is like a good book. Wikipedia is a great place to start and if you just want a quick overview it's probably all you need. But it you really want to understand WTF happened you're going to have to put in some work yourself.

If you confuse the role of each, you're always going to be disappointed.

Edited May 14, 2022 by JonS

[OldSarge]

I hadn't seen this posted. It looks like NATO is already training to some of the lessons learned from Putin's war in Ukraine. The clip above shows NATO SOF training in Latvia to medevac wounded in conditions where air superiority is contested. Medics/PJs never seem to get the praise they deserve.

Edited May 14, 2022 by OldSarge

[fireship4]

Bloody hell it backfired!  Well what can you do... bottoms up.

Edited May 14, 2022 by fireship4

[Megalon Jones]

Dude.  Seriously.

 

[dan/california]

And another BTG departs this mortal coil. There is a breaking point out there somewhere...

[SeinfeldRules]

1 hour ago, keas66 said:

This UA Artillery  Firing solution magic ?  seems to have gone main stream - Apparently its the "Uber" of Artillery Aiming systems .

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-assisted-uber-style-technology-helped-ukraine-to-destroy-russian-battalion-5pxnh6m9p?shareToken=075c436b97ea5590e2b893dd514d2d4e&fbclid=IwAR1fMPPXwhf1gA95ku5OEzSV6s2CASZ1Bwyi4VIHefwVyTmiYkPVGUmX818

 

One thing this thread has probably revealed to me is the gap between reality and truth  presented in our MSM  even when trying to present an even picture of  a given Situation .

 

Be interested in Hearing the resident Experts take on this Times Article  . Seems like an extrapolation of  that Twitter Trent guys posts from a few days ago  which I think a few folks mentioned was overstating the case a little .?

It's definitely based off his Twitter thread but it seems like they at least reached out to the developers for comment. Nothing system wise in the article is outlandish or outside the realm of possibility. I only take issue with the characterization that such a system only takes seconds to deliver fires. Even by American doctrinal standards we have several minutes to process fire missions with fully digital observers and howitzers, and it's very rare to meet that standard due to a wide range of circumstances. Knowing the realities of how these systems operate I am hard pressed to believe the hype, especially in a military without a preponderance of fully digital howitzers. I would love to see actual proof that it's being done this fast on a regular basis. One of the very few things I've seen in OSINT describing the process of target identification to execution - the engineer's Twitter thread discussing the pontoon bridge fiasco - stated it took 20 minutes to deliver artillery fires, which is about on par with my own experience.

Another line in the article I will bring up is the claim that this is contrary to what the Russians are capable of, despite them supposedly having very similar software. Whether it's functioning or wide spread across their formations is unknown to me, but we have seen very little in OSINT that can accurately characterize how Russians control fires on a technical or tactical level, for better or worse. Howitzers lined up close in a field or treeline has very little to do with their ability to send fire mission across a network, and everything to do with the lack of Digital Fire Control systems - a boat that Ukraine occupies equally.

While it's certainly a excellent capability to have and its impressive that the Ukrainian military can utilize something like Starlink to leverage that, digital distribution of fires is nothing revolutionary or unique; articles like this just give the public the opposite impression.

[sross112]

44 minutes ago, JonS said:

Is that really true, or did the Soviet military always have - in retrospect - a kind of Potemkin vibe about it?

Granted, they were very effective from early-'43 through to mid/late-'45, but 'very effective' is not exactly a synonym of 'very good.' Did the Soviets conduct any major operations after WWII? They had a couple of inconsequential and uninspiring skirmishes against the Chinese, and did about as well as anyone in Afghanistan, but other that that ...? Loads of "advisors" in Korea and Vietnam, probably advisors on both sides in Iran/Iraq, plus some AD systems here and there, but really, I can't think of anything they did that was on the scale of what the West (loosely defined) was doing in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.

Also, 'advisors'? Telling other people how they should be using their soldiers and equipment is very different to employing your own. And you know what they say about teachers - those who can, do. Those who cant, ...

Actually, has anyone done a contested assault across a river obstacle since WW2? Maybe in Korea? Seriously, has anyone done one? Or are we looking at a battlefield problem that hasn't been attempted in 70 years and is based on what worked back then without updating for the problems of a modern battlefield?

I can definitely see the RA commander pulling the dusty FM off the shelf from 1946 and figuring what worked for Zhukov would work here. If they looked at the tactical problem of actually getting units across in sufficient amounts in order to create a bridgehead and the operational problem of maintaining it as their primary LOC to support their pincer while considering their ISR deficit, Air operations deficit, logistics deficits and C4 deficits they should have realized it's probability of success was pretty low. However we have seen the same problems with their planning expectations versus reality since day one. 

Please don't take this wrong as I am not defending the RA. I'm wondering if it is even possible in a contemporary conflict to complete a contested crossing. It looks like you would have to have already beaten the enemy into submission, destroyed every gun or missile launcher within range of your bridge and be able to keep the skies clear of any and all UAV's, drones and aircraft before you could successfully accomplish it. If you can't do all those things you probably won't be able to maintain your crossing for even hours. 

So how do you do a successful crossing in modern warfare? Barges instead of bridges? Moving targets would be harder to hit. Anything stationary will be destroyed so some sort of LCAC? Line up the dump trucks and build massive weirs? Thoughts?

 

[SeinfeldRules]

1 minute ago, sross112 said:

Actually, has anyone done a contested assault across a river obstacle since WW2?

 

Egyptians in 1973 over the Suez Canal

[danfrodo]

14 minutes ago, Megalon Jones said:

Dude.  Seriously.

 

whoa, a visit from youtube MegaStar Megalon Jones!  I am your biggest fan! 

[Ultradave]

1 hour ago, JonS said:

Is that really true, or did the Soviet military always have - in retrospect - a kind of Potemkin vibe about it?

Something I've been reflecting on recently. All our training was geared towards slowing down/stopping the all-powerful Soviet hordes. In several books recounting the end of the Cold War, there are accounts of US military officers being surprised by the state of Warsaw Pact armies. Neglected equipment, poorly trained troops, awful morale. But even THEN, they chalked it up to Warsaw Pact nations such as East Germany not being fully in with the program, and that while that may have been true, SURELY the Soviet army was as we thought.

Makes me wonder now seeing how the Russian Army performs - the supposedly revamped, rearmed, Putin rebuilt Russian military - if the Soviet army of the Cold War was more of the same.

Dave

[Calamine Waffles]

1 hour ago, JonS said:

Is that really true, or did the Soviet military always have - in retrospect - a kind of Potemkin vibe about it?

Granted, they were very effective from early-'43 through to mid/late-'45, but 'very effective' is not exactly a synonym of 'very good.' Did the Soviets conduct any major operations after WWII? They had a couple of inconsequential and uninspiring skirmishes against the Chinese, and did about as well as anyone in Afghanistan, but other that that ...? Loads of "advisors" in Korea and Vietnam, probably advisors on both sides in Iran/Iraq, plus some AD systems here and there, but really, I can't think of anything they did that was on the scale of what the West (loosely defined) was doing in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.

Also, 'advisors'? Telling other people how they should be using their soldiers and equipment is very different to employing your own. And you know what they say about teachers - those who can, do. Those who cant, ...

They did several interventions (Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Syria 2016) and fought some small wars (Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia), but they never fought anything close to what they are facing now in Ukraine since 1945.

It is likely their original plan for Ukraine was something like Operation Danube (the invasion of Czechoslovakia), but we know how that went.

Edited May 15, 2022 by Calamine Waffles

[JonS]

1 hour ago, Megalon Jones said:

Dude.  Seriously.

I agree.

Only a monster would shoot in portrait.

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, sross112 said:

Actually, has anyone done a contested assault across a river obstacle since WW2? Maybe in Korea? Seriously, has anyone done one? Or are we looking at a battlefield problem that hasn't been attempted in 70 years and is based on what worked back then without updating for the problems of a modern battlefield?

I can definitely see the RA commander pulling the dusty FM off the shelf from 1946 and figuring what worked for Zhukov would work here. If they looked at the tactical problem of actually getting units across in sufficient amounts in order to create a bridgehead and the operational problem of maintaining it as their primary LOC to support their pincer while considering their ISR deficit, Air operations deficit, logistics deficits and C4 deficits they should have realized it's probability of success was pretty low. However we have seen the same problems with their planning expectations versus reality since day one. 

Please don't take this wrong as I am not defending the RA. I'm wondering if it is even possible in a contemporary conflict to complete a contested crossing. It looks like you would have to have already beaten the enemy into submission, destroyed every gun or missile launcher within range of your bridge and be able to keep the skies clear of any and all UAV's, drones and aircraft before you could successfully accomplish it. If you can't do all those things you probably won't be able to maintain your crossing for even hours. 

So how do you do a successful crossing in modern warfare? Barges instead of bridges? Moving targets would be harder to hit. Anything stationary will be destroyed so some sort of LCAC? Line up the dump trucks and build massive weirs? Thoughts?

 

I find much of this to be convincing.

[JonS]

1 hour ago, sross112 said:

Actually, has anyone done a contested assault across a river obstacle since WW2? Maybe in Korea? Seriously, has anyone done one? Or are we looking at a battlefield problem that hasn't been attempted in 70 years and is based on what worked back then without updating for the problems of a modern battlefield?

The USMC did an assault crossing of the obstacle/mine belt south of Kuwait City in 1991. That's about the only example I can think of that comes close.

Oh, wait - the Egyptians did that stunningly successful assault crossing of the Suez Canal (/hattip to @SeinfeldRules). There might be some other examples from around Israel in the 60s and 70s. But that's all 50-60 years old, and right at the dawn of ATGMs and PGMs.

Edited May 15, 2022 by JonS

[Suleyman]

Forgot about that battle. Those Egyptians were impressive. Applying IQ is very important, and I’d argue that it’s the biggest capability that matters for war.

 

[dan/california]

The Egyptian crossing of the Suez worked because the Israeli's had committed to an airpower heavy, artillery light doctrine. The Soviets gave the Egyptians SAMs that worked, and the Israeli's could not interdict effectively. Classic case of getting caught over learning the last war, where the Israeli air force had been utterly dominant.

[dan/california]

I would argue that the U.S is at least some risk of this same Air force heavy, artillery light doctrine going forward, as SAMs and drones, and very soon lasers just make manned aircraft unviable. I don't think we can assume the Chinese are quite as clueless as the Russians, and they surely taking careful notes on what has and has not worked in Ukraine.

[JonS]

1 hour ago, Calamine Waffles said:

... Syria 2016 ... Chechnya, Georgia ...

It is likely their original plan for Ukraine was something like Operation Danube (the invasion of Czechoslovakia), but we know how that went.

Yeah, I was discounting the interventions, since the only real friction there is what you cause yourself. Syria, Chechnya and Georgia were all post Soviet.

Good point about Op DANUBE though.