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 - OutsiderFan - 07-17-2023

On the cluster de-mining use, I've heard some people claim they can help, but not ideal nor would the efficacy rate be great. But, in combination with drones that can identify them, having a crude method to saturate a path known to be mined, with bomblets, might be better than nothing in terms of allowing a faster advance.

Again, really would be nice if Ukraine could get some forces behind Russian fortifications and attack from the rear where the mine concern won't be as great. What good are tanks, AFVs, and IFVs if you can't really use them in a frontal assault due to so many mines?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-17-2023

(07-17-2023, 10:08 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  On the cluster de-mining use, I've heard some people claim they can help, but not ideal nor would the efficacy rate be great. But, in combination with drones that can identify them, having a crude method to saturate a path known to be mined, with bomblets, might be better than nothing in terms of allowing a faster advance.

Could be, but I expect the DPICM would be preferentially used to keep the Russian defense off the mine clearance folks. Mines can be lifted quite quickly if you have the right equipment and the enemy can't interfere. DPICM can keep the Russian infantry/IFVs fixed in place and unable to shoot back much. That is a big win especially if you have mine plows available. If the minefield is shallow enough (extent, not mine burial depth), you can make an initial breach with line charges and create a security zone for further engineering work. I doubt the Russians skimped on depth though :-).

Quote:Again, really would be nice if Ukraine could get some forces behind Russian fortifications and attack from the rear where the mine concern won't be as great. What good are tanks, AFVs, and IFVs if you can't really use them in a frontal assault due to so many mines?

Not much, as Ukraine has demonstrated. The main purpose of mines is delay, not destruction. Of course, any destruction is "nice", but mines can be lifted. The goal is to make that process so slow and so expensive the troops waiting behind the clearance operation can be targeted and rendered ineffective. More importantly, it also creates time to reinforce the defenses in the region of the prospective breach.

Airborne troops were at one time expected to do what you suggest, get behind the minefields, cut off reinforcements/resupply and at least pin down the opposite sides troops so that the minefields could be breached. It never worked. Helicopter troops ditto. You just can't airlift a strong enough force to do the job and too many things can go wrong with the lift, especially if you don't have air supremacy :-).

What needs to happen, and what Ukraine is trying to do, is identify a place where the minefields can be quickly breached and a very mobile combined arms striking force can pour through. They then have a strong force that can powerfully strike the rear of the line of fortifications and create a much wider breach. To do that successfully, Ukraine must ensure there is no Russian Quick Reaction force that can move freely to "plug the hole". Ukraine is trying to ensure all Russian assets are fully committed so no QRF can exist.

To counter that, Russia has often installed a second line of fortifications immediately to the rear of the first. These fortifications are supposed to engage the breakthrough force and cripple it. The Ukrainians are counting on the fact Russia doesn't have enough troops to man two lines of fortifications all across Ukraine. They are probably correct in that assessment, at least for now. They do however need to find the "right spot", and so far, they haven't.

---

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-forces-running-critical-radars-160803535.html

There are several articles reflecting this trend. Let's hope it is real. Ukraine has not done a great job of counter-battery during this war so far IMO. If that is changing, it is a big win, because without artillery superiority, Russia has a really big problem :-). The Ukrainian actions are partly due to the fact the Soviet doctrine didn't rely on counter-battery extensively as it was assumed the numerical superiority was so great it didn't matter. NATO however did depend on it to mitigate the Soviet numbers.

Interestingly, the Soviets did have a rather complete (and numerically large) counter-battery radar capability. What they didn't have was the organization to quickly locate NATO batteries and get the datum to a battery that would fire the mission. It was a reporting chain that crossed too many boundaries and was therefore slow. These counter-battery radars were also not automated, so the Soviets needed troops who were pretty well trained to operate them. They were also very easy to detect and target.

Russia today undoubtedly has a lot of the "old" systems that would work just fine, but they don't have the trained operators. Instead they rely on the much more sophisticated (and automated, and MUCH larger) Zoopark systems, of which they don't have many. These things are just sitting there screaming "kill me" all day long. Why any still exist is hard for me to explain. Ukraine must not have the necessary systems to target and hit them. Ditto GPS jammers. Ukraine has destroyed some of them. In any case, the Russians still don't have the necessary structure to get the info to the guns. The unfortunate fact is that shortcoming is correctable, and given enough time, even the Russians will correct it. Ukraine needs to "win" before they do, or else things will get lots harder.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-bides-time-counteroffensive-trying-060502604.html
Along similar lines.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 07-17-2023

Articles today about deteriorating cooperation among countries in the Artic and countries in the Black Sea, both of course due to Russia’s war in Ukraine. Some deterioration is inevitable, but I hope they keep lines of communication open to deal with crises as they arise (which will happen).  The Black Sea grain deal seems like a particularly big loss, and I hope the agreement is salvageable

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-17-2023

(07-17-2023, 05:11 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  The Black Sea grain deal seems like a particularly big loss, and I hope the agreement is salvageable

Lots of people are trying to preserve it, including Erdoğan. The Kerch bridge attack isn't going to put Russia in an accommodating mood, if they ever were. It would be great if Ukraine could indeed continue exporting outside of the agreement. If they can, or Russia thinks they can, resurrecting the agreement will at least give Russia some benefit they otherwise would forgo. I think that is the best hope there is. Ukraine is not in any mood to grant any more concessions than they already did to get the original deal.

The vast majority of the ships carrying grain out of Ukraine are foreign-flagged. Most of the trip is in either international waters or Romanian / Turkish waters. Part of the voyage is obviously in Ukrainian waters, but a relatively small part of it. The real problem is insurance. If nobody will write the policies at reasonable rates, there will be no exports. The Russian navy is much weaker today than it was previously. Attacking foreign-flagged ships while they are in Ukrainian waters may be beyond their surface fleet's capabilities. Submarines can do it, but will Russia risk these cruise-missile carriers by using them as commerce raiders? If "somebody" will pony up the money to insure the ships, we may find out. Could be interesting.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 07-17-2023

Belarus abducting Ukrainian children...

Belarus abducts thousands of Ukrainian children

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 07-18-2023

(07-17-2023, 05:41 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(07-17-2023, 05:11 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  The Black Sea grain deal seems like a particularly big loss, and I hope the agreement is salvageable

Lots of people are trying to preserve it, including Erdoğan. The Kerch bridge attack isn't going to put Russia in an accommodating mood, if they ever were. It would be great if Ukraine could indeed continue exporting outside of the agreement. If they can, or Russia thinks they can, resurrecting the agreement will at least give Russia some benefit they otherwise would forgo. I think that is the best hope there is. Ukraine is not in any mood to grant any more concessions than they already did to get the original deal.

The vast majority of the ships carrying grain out of Ukraine are foreign-flagged. Most of the trip is in either international waters or Romanian / Turkish waters. Part of the voyage is obviously in Ukrainian waters, but a relatively small part of it. The real problem is insurance. If nobody will write the policies at reasonable rates, there will be no exports. The Russian navy is much weaker today than it was previously. Attacking foreign-flagged ships while they are in Ukrainian waters may be beyond their surface fleet's capabilities. Submarines can do it, but will Russia risk these cruise-missile carriers by using them as commerce raiders? If "somebody" will pony up the money to insure the ships, we may find out. Could be interesting.

I get the insurance issue so my next question is whether or not it is really impractical to ship the grain by rail?  As it is they have to get the stuff to Odessa to start.  I know one of the major grain growing region borders Moldova so Odessa is not so far away, nor is taking the grain across the border into Moldova.  Of course Moldova may want to stay as neutral as possible.  Maybe it is just a case of you can't move enough bulk unless you move it by ship.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-18-2023

(07-18-2023, 07:43 AM)GK3 Wrote:  I get the insurance issue so my next question is whether or not it is really impractical to ship the grain by rail?  As it is they have to get the stuff to Odessa to start.  I know one of the major grain growing region borders Moldova so Odessa is not so far away, nor is taking the grain across the border into Moldova.  Of course Moldova may want to stay as neutral as possible.  Maybe it is just a case of you can't move enough bulk unless you move it by ship.

Your last sentence sums it up. Transporting grain by rail is much more expensive than doing so by ship, and the rail links between Ukraine and Europe have limited capacity. There is also the gauge problem. Europe uses the "standard gauge" of 1435mm while Ukraine (and Russia) use 1520mm. Anything loaded in Ukraine has to be unloaded and reloaded or the rail trucks have to be interchanged. Commodities like grain are very expensive to ship that way. People and machines are bad enough, but their "value per ton" is much greater than grain. Poland still has lots of 1520, so going out of Polish ports is easier. This was done before the original grain deal was done and continued after, but the additional costs are a problem to the Ukrainian farmers. Antwerp, Hamburg, etc require the gauge change and are prohibitive.

Ukraine and Romania have just opened a "new" rail link in the far west. It doesn't appear it is yet ready for much traffic though.
https://www.railtech.com/infrastructure/2023/01/18/ukrainian-railways-launches-new-service-to-romania/
Ukraine can and does export grain via Romania, but not using this rail route.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/romanian-port-key-ukraine-grain-faces-overflow-black-sea-deal-edge-2023-07-06/

Ukraine and Moldova recently reopened their rail link, but it too isn't very "robust". They also don't have any real access to the Black Sea. What they have is courtesy of Ukraine and not really viable as an export location.

EU comments on the situation: https://www.railtech.com/infrastructure/2022/07/29/eu-wants-standard-european-track-gauge-for-all-member-states/

We in the US (and Canada) are absolutely spoiled by our freight railway system. Despite its many faults, it carries tonnage every day that European railroads only dream about (and those dreams are nightmares :-)). The "grainers" going from the midwest to Long Beach/Vancouver/Prince Rupert to load the grain ships are amazing and the costs are reasonable. Some very long, very heavy trains.
https://www.rupertport.com/terminal_details/prince-rupert-grain-terminal/

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Bruce Wang - 07-18-2023

(07-18-2023, 10:16 AM)Goose Wrote:  ce sums it up. Transporting grain by rail is much more expensive than doing so by ship, and the rail links between Ukraine and 

At long last I have something to contribute to this conversation from my own work experience.  I am in awe of how informed people are here particularly Goose.  And by proxy, I am the expert among by drinking buddies.  This thread has been the most signal on the war since it started last year.

Ukrainian wheat is the one of the cheapest sources of carbohydrates in the world.  IIRC only high fructose corn syrup made from US corn or sucrose from Brazilian sugar cane is cheaper.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 07-18-2023

(07-18-2023, 10:16 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(07-18-2023, 07:43 AM)GK3 Wrote:  I get the insurance issue so my next question is whether or not it is really impractical to ship the grain by rail?  As it is they have to get the stuff to Odessa to start.  I know one of the major grain growing region borders Moldova so Odessa is not so far away, nor is taking the grain across the border into Moldova.  Of course Moldova may want to stay as neutral as possible.  Maybe it is just a case of you can't move enough bulk unless you move it by ship.

Your last sentence sums it up. Transporting grain by rail is much more expensive than doing so by ship, and the rail links between Ukraine and Europe have limited capacity. There is also the gauge problem. Europe uses the "standard gauge" of 1435mm while Ukraine (and Russia) use 1520mm. Anything loaded in Ukraine has to be unloaded and reloaded or the rail trucks have to be interchanged. Commodities like grain are very expensive to ship that way. People and machines are bad enough, but their "value per ton" is much greater than grain. Poland still has lots of 1520, so going out of Polish ports is easier. This was done before the original grain deal was done and continued after, but the additional costs are a problem to the Ukrainian farmers. Antwerp, Hamburg, etc require the gauge change and are prohibitive.

Ukraine and Romania have just opened a "new" rail link in the far west. It doesn't appear it is yet ready for much traffic though.
https://www.railtech.com/infrastructure/2023/01/18/ukrainian-railways-launches-new-service-to-romania/
Ukraine can and does export grain via Romania, but not using this rail route.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/romanian-port-key-ukraine-grain-faces-overflow-black-sea-deal-edge-2023-07-06/

Ukraine and Moldova recently reopened their rail link, but it too isn't very "robust". They also don't have any real access to the Black Sea. What they have is courtesy of Ukraine and not really viable as an export location.

EU comments on the situation: https://www.railtech.com/infrastructure/2022/07/29/eu-wants-standard-european-track-gauge-for-all-member-states/

We in the US (and Canada) are absolutely spoiled by our freight railway system. Despite its many faults, it carries tonnage every day that European railroads only dream about (and those dreams are nightmares :-)). The "grainers" going from the Midwest to Long Beach/Vancouver/Prince Rupert to load the grain ships are amazing and the costs are reasonable. Some very long, very heavy trains.
https://www.rupertport.com/terminal_details/prince-rupert-grain-terminal/

Completely forgot about the gauge change!! Thanks for that infrastructure link. If you ever ride the Via Rail system from Vancouver to Eastern Canada you can see for yourself how long those trains are.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-18-2023

https://www.yahoo.com/news/army-shift-brigades-back-divisions-192701963.html

Pretty inevitable. What the Ukraine war has shown is that indeed a Regimental/Brigade structure does not have the combat power necessary to sustain itself in "modern" (since 1914) war. Regiments and Brigades will still exist, as they always have. They will just not be "separately deployable", i.e. will not contain all the elements needed to operate "alone". This is clearly a reaction to the "Ukraine Experience". Look for the other NATO countries to follow, except they have fewer troops so it will be harder for them to do.

This is a reversion to the previous structure and reflects the fact that fighting less capable opponents could be done with less infrastructure. Of course, our troops got killed by "less capable" opponents, but not because we lacked the combat power to prevail. Pretty much universally, we did prevail. Against a more heavily armed foe that is organized into divisional sized units, that wouldn't be the case. Our units will need, for example, "division sized" artillery barrages to keep from being overrun. Except for the Marines of course. They aren't getting bigger units, they are getting smaller ones. The theory is that they will no longer be used as an "alternate army" (as they certainly were in both Iraq wars) but as a seaborne "Marine Littoral Regiment". I just hope the Joint Chiefs and the politicians are fully aware of what that means. I am not sure even the Marines know what that means, at least not yet.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 07-18-2023

(07-17-2023, 05:41 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(07-17-2023, 05:11 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  The Black Sea grain deal seems like a particularly big loss, and I hope the agreement is salvageable

Lots of people are trying to preserve it, including Erdoğan. The Kerch bridge attack isn't going to put Russia in an accommodating mood, if they ever were. It would be great if Ukraine could indeed continue exporting outside of the agreement. If they can, or Russia thinks they can, resurrecting the agreement will at least give Russia some benefit they otherwise would forgo. I think that is the best hope there is. Ukraine is not in any mood to grant any more concessions than they already did to get the original deal.

The vast majority of the ships carrying grain out of Ukraine are foreign-flagged. Most of the trip is in either international waters or Romanian / Turkish waters. Part of the voyage is obviously in Ukrainian waters, but a relatively small part of it. The real problem is insurance. If nobody will write the policies at reasonable rates, there will be no exports. The Russian navy is much weaker today than it was previously. Attacking foreign-flagged ships while they are in Ukrainian waters may be beyond their surface fleet's capabilities. Submarines can do it, but will Russia risk these cruise-missile carriers by using them as commerce raiders? If "somebody" will pony up the money to insure the ships, we may find out. Could be interesting.

I realize that Ukraine's ability to export wheat is critical to global foodstuff production and consumption. I seem to recall that they were #4 or #5 in global wheat exports. But Ukraine is a significant global exporter of other crops, including (with global rank):

- Sunflowers/sunflower oil (#2)
- Gooseberries (#2)
- Currants (#3)
- Buckwheat (#3)
- Pumpkins/squash/gourds (#3)
- Cucumbers (#4)
- Potatoes (#4)
- Cabbage/other brassicas (#5)
- Carrot/turnips (#5),

That's an awful lot of agricultural production at risk from making it into global markets. I realize we won't feel it much here (if at all), but I imagine there are places in the world that will be severely disadvantaged.

Russia Terminates the Black Sea Grain Deal (My Thoughts from the Last Year) || Peter Zeihan - YouTube

List of largest producing countries of agricultural commodities - Wikipedia

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-18-2023

(07-18-2023, 04:17 PM)Mick Wrote:  I realize that Ukraine's ability to export wheat is critical to global foodstuff production and consumption. I seem to recall that they were #4 or #5 in global wheat exports. But Ukraine is a significant global exporter of other crops, including (with global rank):
- Sunflowers/sunflower oil (#2)
- Gooseberries (#2)
- Currants (#3)
- Buckwheat (#3)
- Pumpkins/squash/gourds (#3)
- Cucumbers (#4)
- Potatoes (#4)
- Cabbage/other brassicas (#5)
- Carrot/turnips (#5),

That's an awful lot of agricultural production at risk from making it into global markets. I realize we won't feel it much here (if at all), but I imagine there are places in the world that will be severely disadvantaged

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/ukraine-plea-keep-grain-moving-130335894.html

Not looking good for continuing shipments of commodities without a Russian guarantee. Erdoğan isn't going to risk his ships as escorts and even if he did that doesn't prevent Russia from sinking the commodity carriers. Bad for the world, bad for Ukraine. I have no clue on what the US and/or NATO can do to "fix" this problem.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 07-18-2023

(07-18-2023, 04:50 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(07-18-2023, 04:17 PM)Mick Wrote:  I realize that Ukraine's ability to export wheat is critical to global foodstuff production and consumption. I seem to recall that they were #4 or #5 in global wheat exports. But Ukraine is a significant global exporter of other crops, including (with global rank):
- Sunflowers/sunflower oil (#2)
- Gooseberries (#2)
- Currants (#3)
- Buckwheat (#3)
- Pumpkins/squash/gourds (#3)
- Cucumbers (#4)
- Potatoes (#4)
- Cabbage/other brassicas (#5)
- Carrot/turnips (#5),

That's an awful lot of agricultural production at risk from making it into global markets. I realize we won't feel it much here (if at all), but I imagine there are places in the world that will be severely disadvantaged

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/ukraine-plea-keep-grain-moving-130335894.html

Not looking good for continuing shipments of commodities without a Russian guarantee. Erdoğan isn't going to risk his ships as escorts and even if he did that doesn't prevent Russia from sinking the commodity carriers. Bad for the world, bad for Ukraine. I have no clue on what the US and/or NATO can do to "fix" this problem.

Whether or not you believe in global warming, there seems no real disagreement that the kind of weather we are not having world wide is going to make a significant impact on wheat, corn and rice production world wide. I would guess the haves will store any surplus until they can't store anymore then start shipping.  The following map shows who has and who hasn't.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/vvbsgl/map_of_global_food_insecurity/
I was surprised to see that according to this map China is one of the countries with some shortage.  The Middle East could become a brobdingnagian disaster area.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-18-2023

(07-18-2023, 06:45 PM)GK3 Wrote:  Whether or not you believe in global warming, there seems no real disagreement that the kind of weather we are not having world wide is going to make a significant impact on wheat, corn and rice production world wide. I would guess the haves will store any surplus until they can't store anymore then start shipping.  The following map shows who has and who hasn't.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/vvbsgl/map_of_global_food_insecurity/

I was surprised to see that according to this map China is one of the countries with some shortage.  The Middle East could become a of immense proportions disaster area.

The situation in the middle east could indeed become dire and very quickly. The map "hides" an even worse story. Some countries export a lot of produce because they must in order to raise cash. Their people in many cases do not have food security. Pakistan is an example. 36.9 % of it's population does not have food security.

Some other situations are caused by the opposite situation. The EU countries, Italy in particular, could produce a lot more export food but are not allowed to do so by the EU quotas. The price support system restricts what is allowed. So could the USA, but we do not because it would crash prices. In many cases, the increased production may not be sustainable, but it is indeed possible for some protracted period.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - OutsiderFan - 07-19-2023

(07-18-2023, 06:45 PM)GK3 Wrote:  Whether or not you believe in global warming

I wasn't going to post "This is like asking if one believes 2 is greater than 1. Belief has no role. It's just fact."

But then I read this and decided, yes, I am going to post that:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/19/climate-crisis-james-hansen-scientist-warning

Just look at the global temperature chart. Again, belief, has nothing at all to do with it.

If there is one positive from this Russian war on Ukraine it is that it has motivated more countries to get off fossil fuels faster. Of course, it's probably gonna be too late.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-19-2023

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mine-clearing-equipment-given-ukraine-112212470.html

This article in a lot of ways highlights the weaknesses of the Ukraine and the West in this war. Unfortunately, they appear to be deeply embedded. The Ukrainians are facing mine fields that are 3 to 10 miles deep. These minefields took a long time to emplace and both the US and Ukrainian intelligence units watched it being done. Ukraine did not have the combat power at the time to meaningfully interfere. Even a good artillery stonk would make such mine laying operations difficult. It is true however that many of these minefields were laid in areas that were quite far behind the FEBA at the time. It was obvious that Russia intended to retreat behind them, which in many places they have done. Not a novel strategy, and it played out over quite a long time.

NATO promised Ukraine lots of mine clearing gear. However, as the article states

Quote:A Ukrainian official told the Post that it had only received around 15% of the specialist de-mining equipment it had requested from Western allies. A US official responded that it would provide all the equipment requested, but there were problems providing it on the scale requested in a timely way.

Well, we only had about a year to do it. Our efforts in Ukraine have a terminal case of "the slows". We do not operate proactively and plan for likely eventualities so we can respond "in a timely way". Our priorities are elsewhere, and that has and is risking defeat in Ukraine. This isn't a "new" theme in my posts, but unfortunately we just aren't getting better. Would we do a better job if it was our troops at the "pointy end"? Given recent events in Afghanistan, I doubt it. IMO our military is "sick" again. One symptom is the inability to recruit even at the current "minimalist" levels we aim at. This is very much "not pretty".

A second problem is that Ukraine has not yet adapted to the idea that they too need to utilize speed and surprise if they are going to "fight like NATO". Last summer, Ukraine supposedly had "several" armored brigades that were going to conduct an offensive. They didn't exist, apparently. Fortunately for Ukraine, in September some enterprising officers found a "weak spot" in Kharkiv Oblast and received permission to attack. The Russian resistance was totally out-maned and crumbled. Behind it was nothing. Ukraine poured through and captured lots of territory before they met organized resistance. However, even in that success there was a "pause" of about 4 days after the initial advance. Ukraine just wasn't resourced to conduct a continuous, quick advance. They would have accomplished a lot more and gone a lot farther if those four days could have been spent advancing.

The limitations on what Ukraine could do at that time was not their "fault". They were operating with an improvised force that was basically infantry and had little or no organic transport. Most of the troops had no "formal training". All along since the Russian invasion that was the case. It makes Ukraine's successful defense and counter-attacks even more laudable. Recognizing this, a large program was put together to equip and train a Ukrainian striking force that could operate as a combined arms force. That was done, which is good. The Russian response was a "hedgehog" protected by mines. Not a surprise.

Ukraine has not yet been able to operate their "new" combined-arms elements because they are stymied by the minefields and the fear of Russian air. Both factors were foreseeable. In the above article, the Ukrainians complained that the German mine clearance vehicles were "big, noisy, and easily destroyed". Obviously, the plan should be to deny the Russians advance knowledge of where you intend to "break in" to the minefield and to arrive with enough force to suppress the defensive fire while you break through. Yes, the Russians can see and hear you, but you are showering them with so much smoke and explosive that they can't raise their heads to shoot and they can't actually see anything! That is how it has to be done. Get through that field and "on" them before their rear echelon can react and reinforce/counterattack.

That isn't the Russian way and so far it isn't the Ukrainian way. Their DNA tells them to laboriously clear the minefield "by hand". The fact the minefields are very deep makes a "quick" breech difficult. That is why the Russians did it that way. However, Ukraine needs to concentrate their forces to allow it to be done "quickly". That isn't easy, and it takes experience and rehearsals. Hard to do when you are fighting for your existence. Even harder if all your higher-level officers are trained in a different approach. It is even harder if you only have 15% of what you think is needed. Concentrating all your mine clearance capability for one attack may be fine if it works, but what if it doesn't? Who wants to sign up to take that risk? How many Bradley IFVs is "OK" to lose in doing it, if you don't know you can replace them? No wonder Ukraine has reverted to "fighting like Russians". They are culturally adverse to the idea of identifying a "schwerpunkt" and going "all in" on an attack. They want to attack everywhere and reinforce success. Russia, at least in the past, could do that because they had unlimited personnel and artillery. They could also lose a lot of territory and survive it. Ukraine simply is not in that situation.

It may very well be that Ukraine can "break in" someplace and we will see a rapid advance with no pauses. We all hope so, because every pause gives the Russians time to react. Generally, the Russians do not react quickly, so keeping them on the "back foot" is an advantage. Let us hope we will see that, but let us also prepare and plan for what comes next if it doesn't.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 07-19-2023

Stalemate still seems like the most likely outcome. 

As everyone here seems to acknowledge, if Ukraine does break through, it will be Spring 2024 (or later). The West simply didn’t deliver enough equipment soon enough to make a lightening counterattack possible this year. 

As to whether the West was right or wrong to slow play, I guess we’ll never know. The West could have ended up losing key diplomatic support from NATO members and/or the public if it went “too fast.”  Or maybe dipping their feet first somehow dissuaded Russia from engaging in tactics that otherwise would have harmed more civilians. Impossible to know. 

One thing that does seem clear, however, is that Ukraine wasn’t just *this* close to succeeding in a big counterattack. Delivering one more type of weapon a little earlier wasn’t going to cut it. Ukraine needed a lot of F-16s, a lot of armored vehicles, DPICMs, ATACMS, etc, and it needed *all* of that a long time ago if it was going to take a large amount of territory this year. 

People in Ukraine are going to suffer more as a result of this delay. More kids in occupied territories will be kidnapped and never returned. The Russians will commit more atrocities. But there is some hope that all the military planning will come together for the West next Spring.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-19-2023

(07-19-2023, 10:48 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  Stalemate still seems like the most likely outcome. 

As everyone here seems to acknowledge, if Ukraine does break through, it will be Spring 2024 (or later). The West simply didn’t deliver enough equipment soon enough to make a lightening counterattack possible this year. 

As to whether the West was right or wrong to slow play, I guess we’ll never know. The West could have ended up losing key diplomatic support from NATO members and/or the public if it went “too fast.”  Or maybe dipping their feet first somehow dissuaded Russia from engaging in tactics that otherwise would have harmed more civilians. Impossible to know.

I am not yet ready to say Ukraine isn't going to accomplish something "remarkable" this year. Their methodical approach may allow them to locate another "weak point" that they can exploit. There is also an argument that September is a "good time" to make a significant attack because if you succeed greatly, the winter weather change will make it difficult for the Russians to counter-attack. Similarly, if the Ukrainian all-out offensive fails greatly, the onset of winter will limit Russia's ability to exploit the failure. It might be a situation of "We get one chance this year. Let us pick our spot and limit the downside risk". Obviously, that offensive probably won't win the war, as even if it should provoke a Russian collapse, the winter weather would set in and stop the bleeding.

Quote:One thing that does seem clear, however, is that Ukraine wasn’t just *this* close to succeeding in a big counterattack. Delivering one more type of weapon a little earlier wasn’t going to cut it. Ukraine needed a lot of F-16s, a lot of armored vehicles, DPICMs, ATACMS, etc, and it needed *all* of that a long time ago if it was going to take a large amount of territory this year.

Certainly having "a lot" of all of the above "a long time ago" would have helped a lot. It is also certain that absorbing "a lot more" into their armed forces would have been difficult. Ukraine is coming to grips with an enemy that is very tenacious and without morals. There are also many more of them than there are Ukrainians. It is undoubtedly daunting. In war, nothing is certain. The Ukraine and the West needs to plan for no significant victories this year while striving to achieve them.

Quote:People in Ukraine are going to suffer more as a result of this delay. More kids in occupied territories will be kidnapped and never returned. The Russians will commit more atrocities. But there is some hope that all the military planning will come together for the West next Spring.

I am afraid that is too soon. Had F-16 training started in April, maybe. In August, not a chance. A bunch of guys that has been in the airplane a maximum of 9 months isn't going to cut it, especially with bad flying weather for at least 5 of those months. How many flying hours will they have? The losses will mount due to inexperience and pilot error. Ukraine will have to stop taking risks and conserve it's scarce F-16 resources.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 07-19-2023

(07-19-2023, 10:00 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  

(07-18-2023, 06:45 PM)GK3 Wrote:  Whether or not you believe in global warming

I wasn't going to post "This is like asking if one believes 2 is greater than 1. Belief has no role. It's just fact."

But then I read this and decided, yes, I am going to post that:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/19/climate-crisis-james-hansen-scientist-warning

Just look at the global temperature chart. Again, belief, has nothing at all to do with it.

If there is one positive from this Russian war on Ukraine it is that it has motivated more countries to get off fossil fuels faster. Of course, it's probably gonna be too late.

I certainly believe in it, but there may be members who do not, thus my wording.  No desire to become the target of those who don't believe.

---

(07-19-2023, 10:34 AM)Goose Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/mine-clearing-equipment-given-ukraine-112212470.html

This article in a lot of ways highlights the weaknesses of the Ukraine and the West in this war. Unfortunately, they appear to be deeply embedded. The Ukrainians are facing mine fields that are 3 to 10 miles deep. These minefields took a long time to emplace and both the US and Ukrainian intelligence units watched it being done. Ukraine did not have the combat power at the time to meaningfully interfere. Even a good artillery stonk would make such mine laying operations difficult. It is true however that many of these minefields were laid in areas that were quite far behind the FEBA at the time. It was obvious that Russia intended to retreat behind them, which in many places they have done. Not a novel strategy, and it played out over quite a long time.

NATO promised Ukraine lots of mine clearing gear. However, as the article states

Quote:A Ukrainian official told the Post that it had only received around 15% of the specialist de-mining equipment it had requested from Western allies. A US official responded that it would provide all the equipment requested, but there were problems providing it on the scale requested in a timely way.

Well, we only had about a year to do it. Our efforts in Ukraine have a terminal case of "the slows". We do not operate proactively and plan for likely eventualities so we can respond "in a timely way". Our priorities are elsewhere, and that has and is risking defeat in Ukraine. This isn't a "new" theme in my posts, but unfortunately we just aren't getting better. Would we do a better job if it was our troops at the "pointy end"? Given recent events in Afghanistan, I doubt it. IMO our military is "sick" again. One symptom is the inability to recruit even at the current "minimalist" levels we aim at. This is very much "not pretty".

A second problem is that Ukraine has not yet adapted to the idea that they too need to utilize speed and surprise if they are going to "fight like NATO". Last summer, Ukraine supposedly had "several" armored brigades that were going to conduct an offensive. They didn't exist, apparently. Fortunately for Ukraine, in September some enterprising officers found a "weak spot" in Kharkiv Oblast and received permission to attack. The Russian resistance was totally out-maned and crumbled. Behind it was nothing. Ukraine poured through and captured lots of territory before they met organized resistance. However, even in that success there was a "pause" of about 4 days after the initial advance. Ukraine just wasn't resourced to conduct a continuous, quick advance. They would have accomplished a lot more and gone a lot farther if those four days could have been spent advancing.

The limitations on what Ukraine could do at that time was not their "fault". They were operating with an improvised force that was basically infantry and had little or no organic transport. Most of the troops had no "formal training". All along since the Russian invasion that was the case. It makes Ukraine's successful defense and counter-attacks even more laudable. Recognizing this, a large program was put together to equip and train a Ukrainian striking force that could operate as a combined arms force. That was done, which is good. The Russian response was a "hedgehog" protected by mines. Not a surprise.

Ukraine has not yet been able to operate their "new" combined-arms elements because they are stymied by the minefields and the fear of Russian air. Both factors were foreseeable. In the above article, the Ukrainians complained that the German mine clearance vehicles were "big, noisy, and easily destroyed". Obviously, the plan should be to deny the Russians advance knowledge of where you intend to "break in" to the minefield and to arrive with enough force to suppress the defensive fire while you break through. Yes, the Russians can see and hear you, but you are showering them with so much smoke and explosive that they can't raise their heads to shoot and they can't actually see anything! That is how it has to be done. Get through that field and "on" them before their rear echelon can react and reinforce/counterattack.

That isn't the Russian way and so far it isn't the Ukrainian way. Their DNA tells them to laboriously clear the minefield "by hand". The fact the minefields are very deep makes a "quick" breech difficult. That is why the Russians did it that way. However, Ukraine needs to concentrate their forces to allow it to be done "quickly". That isn't easy, and it takes experience and rehearsals. Hard to do when you are fighting for your existence. Even harder if all your higher-level officers are trained in a different approach. It is even harder if you only have 15% of what you think is needed. Concentrating all your mine clearance capability for one attack may be fine if it works, but what if it doesn't? Who wants to sign up to take that risk? How many Bradley IFVs is "OK" to lose in doing it, if you don't know you can replace them? No wonder Ukraine has reverted to "fighting like Russians". They are culturally adverse to the idea of identifying a "schwerpunkt" and going "all in" on an attack. They want to attack everywhere and reinforce success. Russia, at least in the past, could do that because they had unlimited personnel and artillery. They could also lose a lot of territory and survive it. Ukraine simply is not in that situation.

It may very well be that Ukraine can "break in" someplace and we will see a rapid advance with no pauses. We all hope so, because every pause gives the Russians time to react. Generally, the Russians do not react quickly, so keeping them on the "back foot" is an advantage. Let us hope we will see that, but let us also prepare and plan for what comes next if it doesn't.

The "slows" of our military is not a surprise at least from my viewpoint.  I never saw the concept of a Professional Army, large enough to defend us and our allies as anything but a fools errand.  Simply too expensive.  Times are vastly different, but my first paycheck as a 2nd Lt was tiny by todays standards, but I managed to pay my car insurance, put gas in the car at insanely cheap prices and buy myself a few beers at the O'Club. By the time I made Captain, the pay was a bit better, but working conditions, which included combat, were pretty poor, but they did pay an extra $65 a month for getting shot at.
My point being that if you want a standing military today, capable of defending the Country and our Allies, you are going to have to come up with a better system than what we have today.
A political rant, but the facts are what they are.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-21-2023

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sobering-analysis-ukraines-counteroffensive-front-221322771.html

I believe this article is probably pretty accurate in it's descriptions of the limitations the Ukraine demonstrates. Granted, confirmation bias is in play :-). Combined arms operations on a medium to large scale can't be "taught" in a 45 day course. It takes lots and lots of practice. As the article points out, even our NATO allies probably could not execute one at the levels required in Ukraine. Stuff happens, things show up late or not at all, some recon is omitted, etc.

The article is complimentary of the troops, NCOs, and company grade officers. This strength is cited as a major advantage Ukraine has over the Russians. The field grade operations get much lower marks. Coordination of various units is lacking in many cases. The article is neither pessimistic nor optimistic. It says there is lots of hard fighting ahead against an enemy that is adapting.

---

(07-19-2023, 12:50 PM)GK3 Wrote:  The "slows" of our military is not a surprise at least from my viewpoint.  I never saw the concept of a Professional Army, large enough to defend us and our allies as anything but a fools errand.  Simply too expensive.  Times are vastly different, but my first paycheck as a 2nd Lt was tiny by todays standards, but I managed to pay my car insurance, put gas in the car at insanely cheap prices and buy myself a few beers at the O'Club. By the time I made Captain, the pay was a bit better, but working conditions, which included combat, were pretty poor, but they did pay an extra $65 a month for getting shot at.
My point being that if you want a standing military today, capable of defending the Country and our Allies, you are going to have to come up with a better system than what we have today.

A political rant, but the facts are what they are.

The all volunteer aspect of our current military is indeed expensive, and certainly does not at present provide a standing army large enough to do what we are expecting of it in the event of a conflict with China. Addressing this problem is indeed important. However, I fail to understand why the all volunteer aspect would produce "the slows". If anything, a small "professional" force would be expected to react quicker to events because all involved are "career" soldiers and are dedicated to their professional competence :-). 

IMO the problem is that the leadership of our military has declined over the last 20 years or so due to the low priority the military has been given in our government and our society. The politicians wanted "yes men" and they got them. This is unfortunately a recurring theme in US history, and probably in world history for that matter. When society believes "serious" conflict is unlikely, it allows it's military to run down. Often, the serious conflict emerges much faster than the military can be upgraded to meet the need. That gets lots of people killed and prolongs wars (if you are lucky and don't lose on day 1). It also means that you will have to burn through lots of "peacetime generals" before you find ones that can lead and fight.

---