How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, womble said:

They are also flying without any worthwhile insurance. No reputable insurance company would touch misappropriated airframes with your barge pole. I'm sure the Russian Government has given assurances that they will cover things, but how much credence can anyone give that sort of promise?

Thank you for bringing up insurance aspects.  This is something that was raised earlier in this thread when discussing the impact of sanctions on Russia in ways that aren't as obvious as the sanctions themselves.  At the time there was an article about Lloyd's of London refusing to insure Russian shipping, which had the knock-on effect that many ports would refuse Russian ships entry because of the liability it would pose.

Many people don't understand how business works in a complex world.  One fundamental is financial liability ass covering.  Insurance is one of the critical components of that ass covering, so if someone is proposing to do an economic activity that isn't properly covered, the cost of that activity (at a minimum) goes up or is precluded (maximum) entirely.

Even if Russia can get coverage worth a darn'd it is going to be more expensive.  Someone will have to pay for that extra expense.  Ultimately those expenses are going to fall onto Russia's economic shoulders.

Steve

[The_MonkeyKing]

13 minutes ago, Huba said:

Nope, he explicitly mean 4 vehicles. Same number was pledged by Germany ( MARS II/ M270) vehicles, and an undisclosed number from the UK. Still can have an impact I guess, if enough ammo is provided, and will be shooting round the clock, but to really make difference a lot more is needed. I imagine they want to make sure Ukrainians are adult about the deal and don't bombard Belgorod straight away, and then more will follow.

Edit:

Here's a nice thread summarizing the whole press briefing:

 

source

[Battlefront.com]

19 minutes ago, Huba said:

Nope, he explicitly mean 4 vehicles. Same number was pledged by Germany ( MARS II/ M270) vehicles, and an undisclosed number from the UK. Still can have an impact I guess, if enough ammo is provided, and will be shooting round the clock, but to really make difference a lot more is needed. I imagine they want to make sure Ukrainians are adult about the deal and don't bombard Belgorod straight away, and then more will follow.

I think AKD is correct.  To me this looks like rushing a couple of units over ASAP to get training started.  Previous efforts have clearly involved NATO members "training the trainers" to get Ukraine able to train their own people in perpetuity without NATO involvement.  Self reliance has to start somewhere.

In any case, it's not likely they can roll these 4 units into combat a few hours after they arrive.  They need 3 weeks to get the crews trained minimum.  If they are doing training the trainers correctly then the first batch of vehicles and trainees will *NOT* be going to the front.  They will, instead, spread themselves out to train many more crews on the vehicles that arrive after the initial 4.  Which means Ukraine is about 6 weeks away from fielding these systems.  Sending them 100 tomorrow wouldn't change that timeframe.

BTW, this is one of the primary reasons I argued earlier in the war to *NOT* send Ukraine stuff like this, but instead prioritize Soviet era or user friendly systems (e.g. NLAW).  Now Ukraine has the time to devote to capabilities that are longer term in nature.  Which is a good thing.

Steve

[The_MonkeyKing]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think AKD is correct.  To me this looks like rushing a couple of units over ASAP to get training started.  Previous efforts have clearly involved NATO members "training the trainers" to get Ukraine able to train their own people in perpetuity without NATO involvement.  Self reliance has to start somewhere.

Pentagon specifically said they have significant "surge ability" with these HIMARS/MLRS systems.

[Huba]

13 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think AKD is correct.  To me this looks like rushing a couple of units over ASAP to get training started.  Previous efforts have clearly involved NATO members "training the trainers" to get Ukraine able to train their own people in perpetuity without NATO involvement.  Self reliance has to start somewhere.

In any case, it's not likely they can roll these 4 units into combat a few hours after they arrive.  They need 3 weeks to get the crews trained minimum.  If they are doing training the trainers correctly then the first batch of vehicles and trainees will *NOT* be going to the front.  They will, instead, spread themselves out to train many more crews on the vehicles that arrive after the initial 4.  Which means Ukraine is about 6 weeks away from fielding these systems.  Sending them 100 tomorrow wouldn't change that timeframe.

Steve

There are 2 problems with this approach in light of number of vehicles being provided:

First, with 4 launchers they are not getting any battalion level training (maybe some battery level), unless there's some being done in parallel outside of Ukraine, but then why use the 4 as a seed and not train the whole battalion right away. OTOH maybe this is not really needed, they won't be doing 18 vehicles fire missions.

And a second thing, how the MARS II and UK provided M270s fit in this picture? It's hardly possible that those countries will provide many more, and at least the German ones have different FCS then American M270s, so they hardly can be used to train more crews. I  guess those still will have some use - 4 should be enough to demolish Snake Island for example.

Edited June 1, 2022 by Huba

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Raptor341 said:

On the slightly off-topic of war videos and entertainment; As I have spent quite a few hours of my life providing ISR and real-time targeting I can say personally that you get used to it pretty quick.

Thank you for making the effort to post your thoughts on this topic.  It is very meaningful to get insights from someone who has experienced the real thing from this perspective.

1 hour ago, Raptor341 said:

Personally, watching the Russians get hit brings up much the same feelings. It's not a joke, it is real, but so is the war. You want Ukraine to win it? Then they need to kill invaders, and kill them in large numbers. This is the reality of it.

Sadly, yes.  I am a huge cheerleader for resolving conflicts in a peaceful manner as long as the result is just and fair.  But once the gloves are off and the fighting starts, I throw my lot in with the side I want to "win" and advocate for the fastest resolution as possible.  Doesn't matter to me if we're talking war, police stand off, bar fight, whatever... violence should be avoided, but once it is unavoidable should be supported as a means to getting back to a non-violent state as quickly as possible.

1 hour ago, Raptor341 said:

All this being said, I find it difficult to watch videos of Ukrainians getting hit because I want them to survive and WIN - yet it also serves as a reminder that the cost is real - not that the cost isn't worth the fight (as much as I can say that without being there myself), but it is real. 

The Human brain is a really weird thing.  I have no doubts that if a brain scanner was hooked up to my head when I watch a video of Russian soldiers getting blown up I'd see parts of the pleasure center light up.  And if I then read that it is really Ukrainians in the video I'm sure that part of my brain would go dark and whatever part handles sorrow would light up.  Same video, totally different emotional reactions.  However, whatever parts of the brain light up for general sadness, empathy, etc. I think that would be lit up significantly even for the Russians.  I don't want Russians to die except for the fact that they are in Russia killing innocent people for nefarious reasons.  For me to want a specific Russian to die I have to have specific reasons.  Like this horrible example of Humanity...

https://www.rferl.org/a/russian-neo-nazis-fighting-ukraine/31871760.html

1 hour ago, Raptor341 said:

(I am also the kind of wargamer that feels bad when he losses pixel troops unnecessarily, they are my responsibility to use wisely)

Agreed.  I even feel a little guilt when I deliberately blow my little guys up testing something for bugs.  I take that as a good thing.

Steve

[dan/california]

36 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think AKD is correct.  To me this looks like rushing a couple of units over ASAP to get training started.  Previous efforts have clearly involved NATO members "training the trainers" to get Ukraine able to train their own people in perpetuity without NATO involvement.  Self reliance has to start somewhere.

In any case, it's not likely they can roll these 4 units into combat a few hours after they arrive.  They need 3 weeks to get the crews trained minimum.  If they are doing training the trainers correctly then the first batch of vehicles and trainees will *NOT* be going to the front.  They will, instead, spread themselves out to train many more crews on the vehicles that arrive after the initial 4.  Which means Ukraine is about 6 weeks away from fielding these systems.  Sending them 100 tomorrow wouldn't change that timeframe.

BTW, this is one of the primary reasons I argued earlier in the war to *NOT* send Ukraine stuff like this, but instead prioritize Soviet era or user friendly systems (e.g. NLAW).  Now Ukraine has the time to devote to capabilities that are longer term in nature.  Which is a good thing.

Steve

Except the training should have started weeks ago. There was just no good reason to make the Ukrainians fight at a disadvantage for most of the summer over some made up escalation issue when there were already ten thousand plus Russian casualties around Kyiv. Really hoping the Poles have another rabbit in their hat like the self propelled 155 that announced 36 hours before they were sending rounds down range in the Donbas.

Edited June 1, 2022 by dan/california

[Battlefront.com]

13 minutes ago, Huba said:

There are 2 problems with this approach in light of number of vehicles being provided:

First, with 4 launchers they are not getting any battalion level training (maybe some battery level), unless there's some being done in parallel outside of Ukraine, but then why use the 4 as a seed and not train the whole battalion right away. OTOH maybe this is not really needed, they won't be doing 18 vehicles fire missions.

Higher level control is more about paper and pencils than hands on nuts and bolts.  You can train the trainer for most of that stuff without having full scale batteries and battalions.

13 minutes ago, Huba said:

And a second thing, how the MARS II and UK provided M270s fit in this picture? It's hardly possible that those countries will provide many more, and at least the German ones have different FCS then American M270s, so they hardly can be used to train more crews.

I expect more are going to be sent by each nation.  As for the differences in training for each system, this is absolutely a big problem.  Same with sourcing parts.  I view this hodge-podge of ex-Soviet and diverse NATO equipment being a transitory, and expedient, way to get Ukraine a uniformly NATO equipped force sometime down the road.

The primary reason Ukraine can't get one type of X system is that generally there isn't enough available.  One of the big downsides of NATO standard equipment is they are expensive (nations don't keep that many extra) and complex (take a long time to produce).  This will all be sorted out eventually, but for right now the mix-mash of frontline stuff and reliance on older stocks of recently retired systems is going to have to do.

13 minutes ago, Huba said:

I  guess those still will have some use - 4 should be enough to demolish Snake Island for example.

No, they'll be left behind for training.  Or at least a minimum of 4 will never go to the front.

Generally speaking, though, these MRLS systems are more strategic in nature for Ukraine.  I don't expect Ukraine will use this for routine frontline activities once they are ready to use them in combat.  I expect they'll be used specifically against strategic targets (definitely Snake Island fits) or for a key point in some counter offensive.  As such, relatively few systems should provide a significant benefit to Ukraine's overall war effort.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Just now, dan/california said:

Except the training should have started weeks ago.

We do not know that training hasn't already started.  To think that everything is out in the public, and therefore we know everything there is to know, is a really shaky position to adopt.  We've already seen several examples where things were far more advanced than we thought.  Might not be in this case, but it is still safer to not be so sure of what we know vs. what we don't know.

Just now, dan/california said:

There was just o good reason to make the Ukrainians fight at a disadvantage for most of the summer over some made up escalation issue

Debating escalation impacts before handing something over is prudent.  It should happen and it needs to happen.  And each time it happens an entire class of weaponry is "settled" and that provides clearer/faster processing for what follows.

In this case it seems that the sticking point was on gaining assurances from Ukraine that they would restrict their use of the MRLS to refrain from potential escalation.  That in-and-itself helps avoid unintended escalation even though the systems will for sure be killing a lot of Russian personnel and equipment in the near future.

Steve

[akd]

Artillery stops a Russian advance:

Longer:

 

Edited June 1, 2022 by akd

[Centurian52]

On 5/30/2022 at 12:37 AM, LongLeftFlank said:

Ha, with T72Bs now joining the 62s and BMP1s, if the US throws in some NG M60s on top of the Leopard 1s and M113s, maybe we'll need to hound @Bil Hardenberger and @The_Capt for a new CMCW module instead of Steve and Charles!

Regrettably I don't think we have any M60s left (I believe that even the few hundred M1A1 SAs we have in service are getting to the point where they are starting to be considered quite old). But even a couple months ago I was blown away by the amount of Cold War era stock the Russians were using. I guess my pre-war image of the Russian army was that everything they had was T72B3 or newer. So yeah, a potential future CMCW module (if they nudge the timeframe forward a bit) and CMBS module could have a lot of equipment overlap. In fact they might as well just keep CMCW in its current time-frame and let a CMBS 2022 module scratch that mid-late 80's itch.

[fireship4]

Incredibly, in akd's video above, from three minutes in you can see the artillery shells mid-flight.

Edited June 1, 2022 by fireship4

[G.I. Joe]

Very good series of posts on the subject of desensitization. I have to admit I often avoid watching the videos...each to their own, though. One odd inconsistency I've noticed is why it tends to make me uncomfortable when I'm fairly used to watching World War II footage in documentaries...somehow the length of elapsed time and the known outcome of the conflict seem to buffer the emotional impact on some level.

[akd]

@sburke @Kinophile

BSF Captain 3rd Rank Yuri Kukushkin:

 

[Cederic]

2 hours ago, Raptor341 said:

If you are going to kill anything you kill it as cleanly and as efficiently as possible

If you want to demoralise and inhibit opposition troops though, you want to hurt them as messily as possible, so that they exhaust far more resources trying to save lives and ship home broken people to deter others.

No, I don't glory in causing pain. I'm just autistic enough to treat enemy troops as objects, which removes any personal guilt from hurting Russians as a quicker route to saving Ukrainians than killing them.

[Aragorn2002]

I don't care in what way Russians are killed, as long as they are killed. And I enjoy watching it. I 'm not a sadist, nor am I sick in the head, I just think they deserve to die.  And the more, the better.

 

[dan/california]

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/exclusive-us-plans-sell-armed-drones-ukraine-coming-days-sources-2022-06-01/

Not 100% sure I believe it. Also not sure how survivable they would be against current Russian air defenses.

[Centurian52]

On 5/30/2022 at 11:12 AM, dan/california said:

I have great deal of concern about the viability of manned aircraft even five years from now, but at this moment we have an air force that nobody else can touch.

Manned aircraft will be around for a long time yet. I believe the sixth generation of jet fighters (and keep in mind that we are only just beginning to really build the fifth generation in earnest) are expected to be a hybrid system of a manned primary platform with several smaller unmanned wingman platforms (at least that's one proposed version of it). It probably won't be until the 7th, or even 8th generation of jet fighters that we go fully unmanned (although by then it will be more than just "unmanned", but fully autonomous). So a fully unmanned airspace is likely several decades away yet. But I suspect it is coming.

[Huba]

All over Twitter now:

Edit: @dan/california beat me to it

Edited June 1, 2022 by Huba

[Battlefront.com]

The long video AKD posted offers some interesting insights as to what is happening in that particular sector.

Here's a mix of speculation and observations:

The original Order of Battle was:

1 x HQ (1x T-72)
2 x Tank Platoon (3x T-72 each)
1 x Mech Inf Platoon (3x BMP + Infantry)

First advance, or perhaps limited recon mission, was unsuccessful and they left 2x T-72 and 1x BMP destroyed on the battlefield.  The rest of the force retreated a fair distance to get out of the artillery kill zone, or was already there if the initial advance was limited recon. 

At some point the remaining force advanced, perhaps hoping the artillery threat would not manifest itself again.  I'm guessing they picked up a fourth BMP from another unit, maybe re-mounting their original squad if it had survived.

The second advance consisted of 5x T-72 and 1x BMP marching in column of Tanks 1 and 2, BMPs 1 and 2, Tanks 3, 4 and 5, with BMP 4 bringing up the rear.  Points to the Russians for decent road spacing on the march, then they ran into the usual bunching problem at the road junction.

Tanks 1 and 2 stopped prior to proceeding out of the tree cover at the junction.  Maybe they hoped they weren't spotted yet.  They pulled off to the right side of the road and were soon joined by the BMP 1 and 2 which pulled up behind them.  Tank 3 stayed on the main road and move just ahead of Tank 1.

There was a humorous bit where Tank 2 backed up into BMP 1, pushing it a few meters.  BMP 2 backed up on its own accord to keep spacing?

Artillery started coming down just as Tanks 3, 4, and 5 followed by BMP 4 made a dash through the field.  They made it as far as the previous destroyed vehicles.  Looks like they lost 2x T-72 and the 1x BMP.  Soldiers can be seen streaming back towards the road junction. Tank 5 turned around and also drove at high speed back towards the road junction.

As this was happening Tank 1 moved into the field to the right and was either hit or disabled in some way.  Tank 2 stayed in the trees, but pointed into the field to the right.  Soldiers dismounted from BMP 1 and moved into the forest followed by the BMP.  BMP 2 seems to have just missed being hit.  Its soldiers dismounted and went into the forest to the right, apparently abandoning the BMP after rolling it forward and to the right.  The dismounts can be seen streaming back to where they came along the far side of the trees lining the road.

It's difficult to assess what the total losses are as we don't have follow up footage and if Tank 5 was possibly hit at the road junction.

For sure this video captures the practical elimination of a company sized task force.  At best it might have lost only 50% of its equipment.

Steve

[Harmon Rabb]

22 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

I don't care in what way Russians are killed, as long as they are killed. And I enjoy watching it. I 'm not a sadist, nor am I sick in the head, I just think they deserve to die.  And the more, the better.

 

Can't say I want to take joy in anyone's death but if eliminating Russian military personal means not seeing anymore Buchas so be it.

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, dan/california said:

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/exclusive-us-plans-sell-armed-drones-ukraine-coming-days-sources-2022-06-01/

Not 100% sure I believe it. Also not sure how survivable they would be against current Russian air defenses.

I believe it.  Deep strike drones must be pretty high up on Ukraine's list, especially after they showed what the smaller T2Bs can do.

Russia's current air defenses are terrible, so I'd not worry too much about survivability provided they are used properly.

Steve

[Phantom Captain]

29 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

I don't care in what way Russians are killed, as long as they are killed. And I enjoy watching it. I 'm not a sadist, nor am I sick in the head, I just think they deserve to die.  And the more, the better.

 

Same.

 

Edited June 1, 2022 by Phantom Captain

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, Harmon Rabb said:

Can't say I want to take joy in anyone's death but if eliminating Russian military personal means not seeing anymore Buchas so be it.

Sadly, this is the choice Putin has forced upon us.  The old saying that the way to a man's heart is through his stomach can be reconfigured here to be the way to victory in Ukraine is through the death of Russia's Armed Forces.

Steve

[Huba]

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I believe it.  Deep strike drones must be pretty high up on Ukraine's list, especially after they showed what the smaller T2Bs can do.

Russia's current air defenses are terrible, so I'd not worry too much about survivability provided they are used properly.

Steve

An interesting comment on that: