How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[cyrano01]

31 minutes ago, JonS said:

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.

And, of course, the Israelis crossed  going the other way on October 15th during their counter-attack. Possibly more impressive as it was managed at shorter notice and without the massive numerical edge.

[asurob]

1 hour ago, JonS said:

I agree.

Only a monster would shoot in portrait.

You've made the videographer in me happy

[Kinophile]

https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/is-putin-sick-or-are-we-meant-to-think-he-is/

Non-tabloid look at the rumours and gossip, speculation and analysis ref Putler's health.

TLDR - yes he very probably has some serious condition, but currently impossible to identify exactly what.

But the immediate 30 people around him know about it, know hes in decline but are still too afraid.

[LongLeftFlank]

5 hours ago, JonS said:

 

According to my residential translation service:

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

Old Chinese dude:

VII.2. Having collected an army and concentrated his forces, he must blend and harmonize the different elements thereof before pitching his camp.

VII.3. After that, comes tactical maneuvering, than which there is nothing more difficult. The difficulty of tactical maneuvering consists in turning the devious into the direct, and misfortune into gain.

VII.4. Thus, to take a long and circuitous route, after enticing the enemy out of the way, and though starting after him, to contrive to reach the goal before him, shows knowledge of the artifice of deviation.

VII.5. Maneuvering with an army is advantageous; with an undisciplined multitude, most dangerous....

VII.13. We are not fit to lead an army on the march unless we are familiar with the face of the country--its mountains and forests, its pitfalls and precipices, its marshes and swamps.

VII.14. We shall be unable to turn natural advantage to account unless we make use of local guides....

Zero out of six.

Edited May 15, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[chrisl]

46 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/is-putin-sick-or-are-we-meant-to-think-he-is/

Non-tabloid look at the rumours and gossip, speculation and analysis ref Putler's health.

TLDR - yes he very probably has some serious condition, but currently impossible to identify exactly what.

But the immediate 30 people around him know about it, know hes in decline but are still too afraid.

He's looked for a while like he was on steriods.  My mom was on prednisone for the last few years of her life and it caused noticeable mood and temperament swings as her levels went up and down.  If she'd had the resources, there were probably a few mornings when she would have invaded Ukraine.

[Battlefront.com]

CNN is doing some pretty good reporting lately.  Here's one about identifying Russian dead with facial recognition.  At the end they talk about a Russian solider they've identified as having been responsible for the 4 dead Ukrainian civilians on the road in Bucha.

 

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, Haiduk said:

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"

That seems to be the case with the BMP-3 crew footage we saw a few pages back.  They were asking if the destroyed vehicles were theirs or Ukraine's and seemed to be surprised they were theirs.  Sure, it could be normal FoW problems, but the crew did not expect to see friendly vehicles smoking in the place they were ordered to go to.

I also find the soldier's comment about the "O" mark interesting.  Now that we're getting some better pictures from the various failed operations to cross the river, I'm seeing a lot of "O" marks.  So it seems some of the attacks were carried out by units formally north of Kharkiv and east of Kyiv.

Steve

[theFrizz]

14 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

That seems to be the case with the BMP-3 crew footage we saw a few pages back.  They were asking if the destroyed vehicles were theirs or Ukraine's and seemed to be surprised they were theirs.  Sure, it could be normal FoW problems, but the crew did not expect to see friendly vehicles smoking in the place they were ordered to go to.

 

It's wild to think how much deception is being used even within their own forces. 

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, JonS said:

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

I think it is somewhere between...

6 hours ago, JonS said:

Granted, they were very effective from early-'43 through to mid/late-'45, but 'very effective' is not exactly a synonym of 'very good.'

Fair point.  My use of the term "very good" was intended to characterize the overall effect of their operations.  On a case by case basis they ranged from utterly incompetent (might even make the Russians today look good by comparison!) to better than the Germans were able to do (the "Gold Standard" for many historians, even if incorrectly so at times).

Having said that, Soviet forces at the end of WW2 seemed to be "good" overall, and in fact "very good" at times, in carrying out set piece battles.  They developed intel on the enemy, properly assessed terrain, deployed forces consistent with the needs of the operation, utilized combined arms, etc.  I'm not saying they did any one of these particularly well by Western Allied or German standards, just that they were able to make a reasonable plan and stick to it.

If you read the detailed planning and execution of the Bagration offensive, which was MASSIVE in scope, it's clear that the German lines melted from a very well planned out, generally well executed attack at all levels.  The taking of Berlin, on the other hand, was just a brute force operation that was more akin to what we've seen Russia do in Ukraine.

One of the things that was consistent with Russian operations throughout the war was how poorly Soviet units performed after their explicit instructions were successful or when they failed.  There are countless examples, small and large, of Soviet units achieving breakthroughs, shooting up the German rear, then getting smashed because they really had no f'n clue what to do next.

Conversely, the Soviets after 1943 got to very good ("very effective" if you rather) at conducting set piece battles at all levels (Bagration being the pinnacle).  They seemed to be quite good at playing to their strengths and German's weaknesses, while at the same time trying to mitigate their own weaknesses.  By German and Western Allied standards they were costly and wasteful, but they got the job done.  A far cry from 1930s-1943.

Russia, however, seems to have the worst of all worlds.  Their tactical abilities are limited and prone to failure just like their WW2 counterparts, but they do not seem to have the capacity to successfully carry out complex set piece battles as WW2 Soviets did.  Poking around into the Russian military shows plenty of evidence that this is not surprising.  I poked into their capabilities before this war and that's why I'm not surprised they aren't very good at their jobs.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, JonS said:

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.

Exactly.  And let's not forget that a lot of the books written by professionals after the war often draw upon media reports filed during the conflict itself.  Journalists getting into a newly liberated town, for example, might be there to do a Human interest story and inadvertently document something interesting to Janes, RUSI, ISW, etc.  "Ah, the journalist showing that knocked out 'tank' actually documented the only known BMP-1M123BZ-53-Projekt 2000 that intel sources only thought was a rumor".  Which is to say, even the most bumbling of ratings seeking journalists might document something extremely important to a military analyst.

And sometimes they go way beyond even this.  During the very early days Russia's "separatist uprising" in the Donbas there were a couple of reporters from VICE and Daily Beast that secured some amazing information that were critically important to understanding what was really going on there.

Steve

[Canada Guy]

There was discussion around Excalibur rounds for Ukraine. 

https://sofrep.com/amp/news/canada-is-sending-ukraine-excalibur-precision-guided-extended-range-artillery-shells/

It appears that Canada will supply some of these to UKR. Is the UA getting different versions of the M777?

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, Ultradave said:

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

In my last post (in response to JonS) I realized that I have once again shown my bias as a WW2 guy.  When I use the term "Soviet" in the context of combat operations, I am almost always thinking WW2 and only WW2.  Which leaves, oh, about 40 years I've pretty much dismissed as not particularly interesting

I think one of the reasons I've been so down on Russia's ability to fight wars is that I've been generally down on the post WW2 Soviet ability to fight wars.  Someone a bunch of pages ago talked about the "atrophy" of warfighting experience in terms of COIN.  Well, I've always pictured the Soviet forces post WW2 losing a lot of their mojo simply because they didn't engage in conventional warfare much (Hungary and Czechoslovakia + some parts of Afghanistan).

Simply put, in terms of military effectiveness I have a pretty high opinion of the Soviets in late WW2 (effectiveness), poor opinion the further from WW2 one goes.  The crappy Russian performance of the 1990s was an outgrowth of how bad the tail end of the Soviet Union was.

Steve

[JonS]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

When I use the term "Soviet" in the context of combat operations, I am almost always thinking WW2 and only WW2.

Funny - my question was exclusively related to the period post-WWII

I'm happy to concede that the Soviets won the ground war against the Germans in the '40s (while the UK won the naval war, and US won the air war .... very broad brush), and was really wondering whether the Western freak out from the '60's right up till the wall crumbled in 89/90 was justified. WarPac force structure was big (like, really big) which does tend to mask a lot of sins. And a defence policy based on "we think they'll probably just trip over their own shoelaces" would never fly. But I do get the impression that there was a bit of anaphylactic shock going on in the political and military spheres.

On the other other hand, as has been noted several times, given slightly different priors we'd currently be sitting around discussing how Putin is still an evil genius after overrunning Ukraine in 3 days, so ...

Edited May 15, 2022 by JonS

[chuckdyke]

6 minutes ago, JonS said:

But I do get the impression that there was a bit of anaphylactic shock going on in the political and military spheres.

It was under the umbrella of Mutual Assured Destruction. A Barbarossa type of invasion or a Bagration type of offensive would have been retaliated with nuclear weapons. 

[G.I. Joe]

7 hours 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, ...

Good question... I have to admit, this war has made me take the "Desert Storm gave us a false sense of security" narrative a bit less seriously than I might have previously. If anything, I'm beginning to think the Iraqi military might have been better proxies for Soviet forces than the Coalition may have realized at the time...

[MikeyD]

I've (half) joked before that Russia's strategy was to run Ukraine out of artillery shells and bullets by throwing bodies at them, thereby winning by default. If Ukraine had been as weak as they imagined and if NATO was less quick to assist that tactic could have worked. Imagine Ukraine running out of artillery shells, AA missiles and ATGMs three weeks ago. Then Putin would have been hailed (in some circles) as a strategic genius. That, of course, didn't happen and this war will instead go down in history as an epic history-altering miscalculation.

Edited May 15, 2022 by MikeyD

[Hapless]

Another Reddit link: https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/upz9f6/mz21_9m22s_fired_from_a_bm21_landing_on_the/

Russians firing incendiary cluster munitions on Azovstal. Not sure how effective that's going to be at setting things on fire in a steel works, but it certainly looks unpleasant.

The main reason for linking it though is that you get to see the individual submunitions falling and it looks remarkably similiar to the cluster munitions in CMCW, what with the orange/red projectiles: obviously Battlefront nailed it!

[Raptor341]

2 hours ago, G.I. Joe said:

Good question... I have to admit, this war has made me take the "Desert Storm gave us a false sense of security" narrative a bit less seriously than I might have previously. If anything, I'm beginning to think the Iraqi military might have been better proxies for Soviet forces than the Coalition may have realized at the time...

I’ve been thinking the same myself - - there are bound to be differences between what would have played out between the 1991 Iraqi Army vs the 1991 Soviets but it gives pause for thought. The Iraqis did have a battle tested and large force going into 1991, something that concerned Western military leaders in the build up to Op Desert Storm. 

[LongLeftFlank]

2 hours ago, MikeyD said:

I've (half) joked before that Russia's strategy was to run Ukraine out of artillery shells and bullets by throwing bodies at them, thereby winning by default. If Ukraine had been as weak as they imagined and if NATO was less quick to assist that tactic could have worked. Imagine Ukraine running out of artillery shells, AA missiles and ATGMs three weeks ago. Then Putin would have been hailed (in some circles) as a strategic genius. That, of course, didn't happen and this war will instead go down in history as an epic history-altering miscalculation.

Indeed. And whose bodies are being 'thrown?'

 

 

 

Edited May 15, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[Huba]

Part of thread by Phillips O'Brien - Sky interviews Chief of UA Military Intelligence. Guy is quite confident that by mid of August Russian army will collapse. 

 

Edited May 15, 2022 by Huba

[Haiduk]

12 hours ago, Suleyman said:

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. 

South from Protopopivka village west from Izium

[Haiduk]

5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I also find the soldier's comment about the "O" mark interesting.  Now that we're getting some better pictures from the various failed operations to cross the river, I'm seeing a lot of "O" marks.  So it seems some of the attacks were carried out by units formally north of Kharkiv and east of Kyiv.

Both 35th and 74th motor-rifle brigades, involved in crossing, fought on Chernihiv direction. 

[LongLeftFlank]

1 hour ago, Huba said:

Part of thread by Phillips O'Brien - Sky interviews Chief of UA Military Intelligence. Guy is quite confident that by mid of August Russian army will collapse. 

 

We have been saying for a long time that the Russian army that Russia is trying promote in various training videos does not exist. It is a horde of people with weapons. That's all they've got.

Mic drop

[panzermartin]

2 hours ago, Hapless said:

Another Reddit link: https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/upz9f6/mz21_9m22s_fired_from_a_bm21_landing_on_the/

Russians firing incendiary cluster munitions on Azovstal. Not sure how effective that's going to be at setting things on fire in a steel works, but it certainly looks unpleasant.

The main reason for linking it though is that you get to see the individual submunitions falling and it looks remarkably similiar to the cluster munitions in CMCW, what with the orange/red projectiles: obviously Battlefront nailed it!

Interesting footage. I didn't know cluster bombs could be incendiary as well. I wonder how many different types of artillery has Russia used so far, every time I see something different. I could be wrong but I haven't seen these in CMBS I think....Might give CMCW a try some of these days. 

[Haiduk]

11 hours ago, fireship4 said:

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

Russian cyniсism

And official clip "Stefania", filmed in ruined Ukrainian cities. 

 

 

Edited May 15, 2022 by Haiduk