Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 06-11-2023

I took a closer look at today's news of 3 villages reclaimed by Ukraine.  The all are within a 5 km stretch of the Mokri Yaly river. 

The BBC report says Ukraine indicates Russia has blown another dam (much smaller apparently) that is flooding that river, but I didn't find the reported town's name on that river.  The dam upstream of today's villages is next to a town of a different name (Klyuchove).

Mariupol (port on the Sea of Asoz) is about 100km SE of those villages.  About halfway there is a town of Rivnopil. Some defenses at that city were highlighted in a BBC report.  The structures in the BBC report do not show in the satellite imagery on Google Maps (dated 2023) nor on Bing Maps (dated 2023) nor on Apple Maps.

ISW's interactive map has been updated to show this area as Claimed Ukrainian Counteroffensives.

(I find it confusing to find the towns in Ukraine by name.  One of the towns reclaimed has the same name as 4 or 5 other towns in Donetsk Oblast.  There is a Rivnopil near the front line, to the WNW of the liberated towns, but that's not the one that BBC covered.)

This is all quite flat, open farm land.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 06-12-2023

(06-11-2023, 04:48 PM)M T Wrote:  I took a closer look at today's news of 3 villages reclaimed by Ukraine.  The all are within a 5 km stretch of the Mokri Yaly river. 

The BBC report says Ukraine indicates Russia has blown another dam (much smaller apparently) that is flooding that river, but I didn't find the reported town's name on that river.  The dam upstream of today's villages is next to a town of a different name (Klyuchove).

Mariupol (port on the Sea of Asoz) is about 100km SE of those villages.  About halfway there is a town of Rivnopil. Some defenses at that city were highlighted in a BBC report.  The structures in the BBC report do not show in the satellite imagery on Google Maps (dated 2023) nor on Bing Maps (dated 2023) nor on Apple Maps.

ISW's interactive map has been updated to show this area as Claimed Ukrainian Counteroffensives.

(I find it confusing to find the towns in Ukraine by name.  One of the towns reclaimed has the same name as 4 or 5 other towns in Donetsk Oblast.  There is a Rivnopil near the front line, to the WNW of the liberated towns, but that's not the one that BBC covered.)

This is all quite flat, open farm land.

A good article by Ben Hodges
https://cepa.org/article/think-ukraines-offensive-has-started-wait-for-the-heavy-brigades/

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-12-2023

(06-12-2023, 10:28 AM)GK3 Wrote:  

(06-11-2023, 04:48 PM)M T Wrote:  This is all quite flat, open farm land.

A good article by Ben Hodges
https://cepa.org/article/think-ukraines-offensive-has-started-wait-for-the-heavy-brigades/

The  flat, open farm land description is accurate and important. That is the kind of terrain that is considered "good tank country" in Ukraine. It is also good country for Russian Frontal Aviation to use standoff weapons to wreck the Ukrainian armor. Fortunately, while Russian ground attacks by aircraft are somewhat more frequent these days, it hasn't become a big problem for Ukraine. That is something Ukraine obviously has been (rightly IMO) concerned about.

OTOH, we also have not seen the multi-brigade, 250 armored vehicle attack that Ben Hodges is referring to. That type of attack is what I think we all expected to see, but I am coming around to the idea that maybe Ukraine has something else in mind. It might be that Ukraine believes Russia is vulnerable to smaller, sharp attacks against many carefully chosen points. They are basically jab, jab, jab, jab instead of throwing haymakers. It may be that Ukraine is making Russia bleed, sapping their energy, and destroying their resolve. We may see a haymaker eventually, but I think Ukraine just isn't going to risk that right now.

Ukraine is also keeping pressure on in the Donbas. If Ukraine can surround significant Russian forces in Bakhmut, that would be a pretty big tactical opportunity for Ukraine and a public relations disaster for Russia. IMO, Donbas isn't the place to win the war, but maybe Ukraine "knows something" that I do not. Either way, it may fix the Russian military's attention in the wrong place, and at the opportune moment Ukraine can throw their haymaker in the south. I am actually expecting a combination there, first in Zaporizhzhia Oblast and subsequently in Kherson Oblast. Hopefully, Ukraine can get that far. IMO Ukraine really wants to break the land bridge and be on the northern borders of Crimea by August. If they can do that, a winter pause wouldn't be a disaster. If the Ukraine can't accomplish this by about August, they are going to give Russia a pause to refit and start new offensives while they still hold a reasonable tactical position in the south. We really don't want that to happen.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 06-12-2023

(06-12-2023, 10:28 AM)GK3 Wrote:  A good article by Ben Hodges
https://cepa.org/article/think-ukraines-offensive-has-started-wait-for-the-heavy-brigades/

For those that don't know Ben Hodges and didn't read it, he described his experience as
"a brigade commander and corps chief of operations in Iraq, and later as Director of Operations in Kandahar, Afghanistan".  At the end of the article was

Quote:Ben Hodges is Senior Advisor to Human Rights First, a non-profit, nonpartisan international human rights organization based in New York, Washington DC, and Los Angeles. Prior to joining Human Rights First, he held the Pershing Chair in Strategic Studies at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA).

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 06-12-2023

As Hodges notes, Ukraine badly needs ATACMS. Ukraine has done an okay job of keeping a lid on information from the battlefield in recent days, but everyone knows that Ukraine hasn’t gained significant ground. It may benefit Ukraine to hold back those haymaker punches until the US concludes that ATACMS are necessary.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-12-2023

(06-12-2023, 10:06 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  As Hodges notes, Ukraine badly needs ATACMS. Ukraine has done an okay job of keeping a lid on information from the battlefield in recent days, but everyone knows that Ukraine hasn’t gained significant ground. It may benefit Ukraine to hold back those haymaker punches until the US concludes that ATACMS are necessary.

While I think having ATACMS would be great (and have been saying so for a very long time), I don't think that is the "problem". The "deep strike" missions help a lot, but what Ukraine really needs is an air force. Unfortunately, that isn't happening in the next 6 months or so, no matter what NATO/the west does.

The first reason they need it is to keep the Russians from launching strikes on both Ukraine's cities and Ukraine's  troops using "standoff" weapons. Ukraine is already taking a beating in the cities and they are very concerned that if they commit a large armored force to a concentrated attack it will be basically decimated by Russian air for which they have no answer. That is, IMO, a big reason why they are keeping their concentrations relatively small. They don't want to present Russia with a lucrative target unless and until they are "sure" it is worth it.

The second reason they need an air force is to provide a relatively cheap way to attrit the Russian defensive positions. This can be done with missiles, but it is very expensive to do so. It takes lots and lots of missiles. Bombs are cheaper and much more plentiful. If you are fighting a "quantity" enemy, like Russia, you will quickly discover there aren't enough missiles in the world to do the job, unless you use nuclear weapons. We fight under the AO, and Ukraine wants to as well.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - gocard14 - 06-13-2023

(06-12-2023, 10:06 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  As Hodges notes, Ukraine badly needs ATACMS. Ukraine has done an okay job of keeping a lid on information from the battlefield in recent days, but everyone knows that Ukraine hasn’t gained significant ground. It may benefit Ukraine to hold back those haymaker punches until the US concludes that ATACMS are necessary.

There haven't been reports of big gains in the last day or two, but also not a lot of images of new losses circulating. I wonder if they are taking a pause to reorganize, attrit Russian logistics, and reconsider tactics, especially in light of Russia having RAAMs now on the front, which is apparently what caused so much grief for that initial column of leopards/bradleys. 

In other news, I'm glad to see we're providing some more bradleys and strykers. With losses and the survivabilty of soldiers in western armor, we're going to have more and more trained soldiers without a mount, which would be a waste. Also interesting that we are going to provide DU tank rounds. This probably isn't a brobdingnagian deal in that there is relatively little tank on tank fighting that you need them for, but hopefully it opens the door to sending DU armor and modern Abrams.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-13-2023

https://www.yahoo.com/news/armor-expert-breaks-down-ukraines-231107678.html

IMO this article provides useful context on what might be going on in Ukraine's armored battles. It is indeed important to realize that despite the fact they have been "trained" for several months, they haven't actually fought combined arms battles against a "real" enemy. Mistakes will be made, and in some cases even when Ukraine does everything "right", the Russians will prevail because they were just too strong where the attack went in.

Ukraine's "advantage" is that the front is very long and Russia cannot hold the entire line in adequate strength and depth. Ukraine can and will "break through" in places. These operations will be costly, as assaulting prepared fortified positions always are. It is what happens after the breakthrough that defines success or failure. The combined arms team that breaks through needs to isolate and bypass as many Russian fortified positions as possible and cut them off. These positions will run out of ammunition and food fairly quickly if they are just trenches/emplacements dug into open country. Mask them with infantry to fix them in place and keep exploiting. They aren't going anyplace.

The question then becomes how quickly Russia can supply a quick reaction force to seal off the Ukraine's combined arms exploitation force. The Russians can buy themselves time by using Frontal Aviation to damage the Ukrainian forces advancing in open country. Obviously air attacks can even destroy such an advance if they are large enough and persistent enough. Even if they just inflict losses and slow down the advance they can be very effective. Ukraine is very concerned that the significant losses they suffer in the breaching attempt may be wasted if their exploitation forces are hit heavily from the air and do not accomplish much.

Normally, one would also be concerned about an enemy quick reaction force showing up and a meeting engagement developing between the Ukrainian exploitation force and the Russian blocking force. This is an event the US always has trained for and considers extremely important. However, it is unclear (to me anyway) that Russia has the training or assets available in Ukraine to do this effectively. We have yet to see such a battle in this entire war, AFAIK. It can't be ignored though as a possibility. I think Ukraine would actually love to fight such a battle. Best case though, Russia can't step up quickly enough and the Ukrainian combined arms advance wrecks havoc. I don't know enough about the troop dispositions in Ukraine to know what mobile reserves Russia has or where they are. I do know that Russia will have the advantage in the air. I also know that Russia has tended toward a static "layered" defense (second line of fortifications) to contain the initial breakthrough. How well manned and motivated this second line (where it exists) is, I have no idea. This is the WW I/II "solution". It works fine if you have the forces to execute it. Hopefully, Russia does not.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 06-13-2023

Yeah on Saturday/Sunday we started getting word of relative breakthroughs, that were confirmed this week, but nothing new yet.  While there is a media blackout on the Ukrainian side, we still typically get word on breakthroughs and advances via Russian sources and some Ukrainian sources anyway.  

Russia has shown footage of the same Ukrainian disaster a few times now, most recently showing their soldiers walking up to the abandoned vehicles, but not them capturing them, so who knows what happaned to them, but it is good to see the US urgently replacing them.  Given the crews likely survived, they probably will be back fighting soon enough, though hopefully with better command.  

It's important to note we haven't seen a lot of the newer vehicles yet.  The US replaced some Strykers, but we haven't seen any confirmed losses, nor have we seen the PT-91's, Challenger 2s, Marders, CV9040s (apparently they just finished training) and also the KTO Rosomaks (if any have been delivered already).  This makes me thing we still haven't seen the main thrust, which might hint at what General Hodges said.  I also wonder if we see a large attack in the northern Luhansk area.  That seems to be much less defended, compared to the southern front, and there have been rumors of troop concentrations for Ukraine up there.  This would be similar to the Kherson/Kharkiv offensives, where Kherson started first, but then the Kharkiv surprised the Russians a couple days later.  Unlikely we see success to the same level, but we can all hope.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - thatboy - 06-13-2023

(06-12-2023, 10:23 PM)Goose Wrote:   We fight under the AO, and Ukraine wants to as well.

What is "AO"? It's probably in the context of your comments, but I must have overlooked it. Thanks.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-14-2023

(06-13-2023, 11:05 PM)thatboy Wrote:  

(06-12-2023, 10:23 PM)Goose Wrote:   We fight under the AO, and Ukraine wants to as well.

What is "AO"? It's probably in the context of your comments, but I must have overlooked it. Thanks.

Aluminum Overcast. This is an "old saying" regarding the philosophy of the US army. That army has never had to fight for any significant period where it was effectively threatened by any enemy air attack. It has always operated under US air supremacy. The sky is "overcast" because there are so many USAF aircraft occupying it :-).

Every so often there will be a paroxysm of concern that this air supremacy isn't guaranteed by mother nature (gasp!) and the army will "do something" to address the issue. This has lead to programs such as the Vulcan (the US version of the ZSU-23/Gepard family), Sgt. York, (Literally never worked),  Chaparral, Linebacker, and Avenger systems. The latter three "worked" to some lesser(mostly) or greater extent, but it didn't really matter. We never needed them. The Army did have a "winner" in the Red Eye (and successors) MANPADS that has been used successfully by other countries, but it is obviously a "limited" weapons class. If you are being bombed by B-52s, your Stinger isn't going to help you much.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 06-14-2023

(06-14-2023, 07:40 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(06-13-2023, 11:05 PM)thatboy Wrote:  

(06-12-2023, 10:23 PM)Goose Wrote:   We fight under the AO, and Ukraine wants to as well.

What is "AO"? It's probably in the context of your comments, but I must have overlooked it. Thanks.

Aluminum Overcast. This is an "old saying" regarding the philosophy of the US army. That army has never had to fight for any significant period where it was effectively threatened by any enemy air attack. It has always operated under US air supremacy. The sky is "overcast" because there are so many USAF aircraft occupying it :-).

Every so often there will be a paroxysm of concern that this air supremacy isn't guaranteed by mother nature (gasp!) and the army will "do something" to address the issue. This has lead to programs such as the Vulcan (the US version of the ZSU-23/Gepard family), Sgt. York, (Literally never worked),  Chaparral, Linebacker, and Avenger systems. The latter three "worked" to some lesser(mostly) or greater extent, but it didn't really matter. We never needed them. The Army did have a "winner" in the Red Eye (and successors) MANPADS that has been used successfully by other countries, but it is obviously a "limited" weapons class. If you are being bombed by B-52s, your Stinger isn't going to help you much.

Do have any idea why Turkey continues to prevent Sweden from joining NATO?  I know there is religious event issue, but can't we make the guy an offer he can't refuse?  He seems half in Russia's camp anyway.  It makes no sense that we let one country out of many dictate membership when it gets its nose in a snit.
Seems like we need a better arrangement, but I guess I can say good luck on that.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 06-14-2023

Belarus taking delivery of three tactical nuclear weapons.

Belarus receives nuclear bombs ‘three times size of Hiroshima bomb’ from Russia

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-14-2023

(06-14-2023, 08:29 AM)GK3 Wrote:  Do have any idea why Turkey continues to prevent Sweden from joining NATO?  I know there is religious event issue, but can't we make the guy an offer he can't refuse?

No, we can't. If you look back through the posts you will see that I have believed this problem would persist at least until well after the election, and possibly beyond that. This was before the "religious event" even happened. Erdoğan did and does receive significant political benefit in Türkiye for his stance. He needed every bit of that he could get to win a very close election. The problem is now that he can't really back away from that position or he will lose that support going into what will undoubtedly be a difficult economic period for Türkiye.

It is undoubtedly also true that he believes that Sweden can stop these demonstrations if they want to, and the fact they do not is a sign they do not respect him or his government. While a lot of that is simply that in Sweden, dissent is somewhat protected by law, there is a grain of truth in Erdoğan's perception. Sweden has tolerated the PKK operating inside their country. These people are not Swedish. They probably could have been deported. They were not, partly because there is sympathy for the Kurds in lots of the NATO countries. Erdoğan really doesn't like that and asks how the alliance can have members that don't respect each other's governments. While he does have a point there, I am pretty sure the US State Department doesn't hold his government in very high esteem either, IMO for good reason.

Quote:He seems half in Russia's camp anyway.

Not really. He needs Russian tourists to support his economy, but with the war going on that may be a bit of a depressed market. He needs to play both sides to support his increasingly deteriorating economic situation. The EU has convinced Türkiye that it is not wanted in Europe unless it changes some basic aspects of it's society, which it is unwilling to do. Once that message was received and understood, Türkiye really had to look for a new "niche" in the world. This current straddle is an attempt to do that. Türkiye is in NATO for basically 1.5 reasons. Reason 1 is it's strategic location. It contains Russia's access to the Mediterranean Sea. That is basically "priceless" and got Türkiye into NATO despite the fact the Greeks hated them and they were (at the time of admission) not really a "military asset" to the alliance. The other 0.5 was that the Turks were staunchly anti-communist and had a long history of fighting Russia. They feared and hated a Godless, communist Russia much more than just about anything else. Unfortunately, this is no longer true.

Quote:It makes no sense that we let one country out of many dictate membership when it gets its nose in a snit. Seems like we need a better arrangement, but I guess I can say good luck on that.

NATO has always "made sense" only as an alliance of disparate nations, many of which didn't much like each other, who feared the USSR enough to swallow their doubts. Greece put up with Türkiye even though they periodically to this day shoot at each other. France (de Gaulle) pulled out of the "military" wing of NATO because he felt it constrained French policy too much. All the NATO war plans had two scenarios for may years. 1) France fights, 2) France doesn't fight. Made things real complicated for the FRG. The "problem" today is that Sweden now fears Russia enough to want to join NATO, while Türkiye fears Russia too little to swallow their (Erdoğan's) "doubts".

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 06-14-2023

When it comes to mine clearing for this Ukrainian offensive, are there going to be mine fields all the way down to the sea of Azov, or are those primarily along the first line of contact?  It seems clearing mines is extremely challenging, and relatively cheap and easy to set up for a defender who is holding a fixed position for a long time, but once Ukraine theoretically has a major break through, will they continually have to worry about that?  Is Russia able to continually lay mine fields as they pull back?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 06-14-2023

To answer your last question, yes.

Here is a Russian ammo truck hitting a Ukrainian mine that was fired by Ukrainian artillery, into the Russian rear area near the Velyka Novosilka axis, likely very recent.

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1669119331148414979?s=20[/tweet]

Russian remote mining vehicles operating in Donetsk recently, supposedly they were some of the last vehicles to leave Kherson.

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1668762462093713409?s=20[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-14-2023

(06-14-2023, 04:20 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  To answer your last question, yes.
Here is a Russian ammo truck hitting a Ukrainian mine that was fired by Ukrainian artillery, into the Russian rear area near the Velyka Novosilka axis, likely very recent.
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1669119331148414979?s=20
Russian remote mining vehicles operating in Donetsk recently, supposedly they were some of the last vehicles to leave Kherson.
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1668762462093713409?s=20

The artillery-laid minefields are MUCH easier to clear than buried mines however. Their main purpose is delay, not destruction. They do work as "surprise" weapons when they are fired into areas that have already been cleared of conventional mines. Drivers who are not being real careful will hit them even on paved roads. Once you realize they are a threat, people become careful, see them, and stop. Of course, these mines can be much more difficult to see in off-road usage. Such mines are real useful against a fleeing enemy, because often troops that are fleeing aren't "careful". They also work well at delaying advancing troops because even if you see them, you have to clear them. If you have a bulldozer or something similar and are on a "good" road, it isn't too hard to do. At one point in history it was possible to clear these mines "by hand" pretty easily, because they were anti-vehicle and you could just pick them up. Today, the anti-vehicle mines have "anti-disturbance features" that makes that pretty hazardous :-).

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 06-14-2023

FWIW if you watch videos from Ukraine you will see Ukrainians regularly clearing TM62 anti tank mines by kicking them out of the way or picking them up with their hands.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-14-2023

(06-14-2023, 05:13 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  FWIW if you watch videos from Ukraine you will see Ukrainians regularly clearing TM62 anti tank mines by kicking them out of the way or picking them up with their hands.

TM62 are, of course, mines designed to be buried and cannot be deployed artillery or rocket systems. They can be deployed by helicopters. The Russians have often been reduced to simply placing these mines on the surface, where Ukrainians have "cleared" them as you describe. I wouldn't recommend this, not because the mines have "anti-tamper" capability, but rather because Russian QC is so bad they might simply be unstable :-). When buried, these mines are very deadly and if the plastic case variant is used, hard to detect. Good engineers can also lay these mines with an anti-personnel mine under it. This makes lifting the mines by hand quite dangerous. Mine plows don't much care though.

The Russian PTM-1S is designed to be deployed by Grad or Uragan rocket systems. It does not have anti-tamper capability but Russia often fires a mixture of anti-personnel mines with them. The PTM-3 OTOH (a much bigger mine) cannot be moved after it arms. It is a magnetic mine that will explode when the earth's magnetic field around it is changed, either by a large metal object or by the mine being moved. For some reason as I understand it, the TM62 with an MVN-72 magnetic fuse does not reliable explode when moved/lifted, although it "may". Presumably the Ukrainians are familiar enough with the TM-62 to recognize those using magnetic fuses and behave accordingly.

NATO FASCAM devices absolutely do have anti-disturbance capability and therefore must be removed using mechanical assistance. You can't just pick them up.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 06-15-2023

This is certainly interesting, it seems the US and a European country are purchasing around 200 mothballed IDF tanks from Israel, Merkave mk2 and mk3 tanks.  I'd assume these will go to Ukraine, or maybe would backfill countries that have given tanks to Ukraine, but that seems less likely.  This would fill 2+ new tank battalions for Ukraine.  The mk2 seems similar to a Leopard 1, with a 105mm main gun, while the mk3 has a 120 mm smoothbore main gun, so similar to the more modern western tanks.  

There seems to be a decent amount of 105mm tanks going to Ukraine with the  M-55S', Leopard 1's, and now potentially Merkave mk2's, I wonder if we see a lot more Russian T-55/54's actually in combat situations a year from now, as Russia depletes their T-72 and newer stocks, but that's just a theory.  I really wish the US would just commit to a large amount of Abrams for Ukraine a year from now, it seems they could build them, or upgrade stored tanks by then, and would be more versatile, despite their logistical flaws.  

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/skugq500p2

---