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 - Goose - 09-12-2023

(09-12-2023, 08:12 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  From video that had film from before impact, it sounded like a cruise missile. Guessing Storm Shadow but could be a Ukrainian Neptune perhaps. There has been talk of more upgraded ground attack versions being produced.

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1701791873562517826?s=20
https://twitter.com/jabuttee/status/1701784683694993899?s=20

In any case, a cruse missile by all rights "shouldn't" have made it through the air defenses. With all the GPS jamming in that area, I would assume it had to be something with a very good INS and probably some kind of pattern matching optical/infrared  terminal guidance. That is a Storm Shadow. However, getting through the air defenses on a "direct" path would be very difficult. I would guess the launch came from over the Sea of Azov, which would be a "surprise" trajectory and would avoid all the air defense in south Kherson and north Crimea. That is the reference to "the most heavily defended in the world". It isn't, although arguably at one time it was. Past tense. That said, it is still a tough thing to do.

It may be that some very courageous Ukrainian special forces helped by providing a laser designation of the targets. That is just so gutsy that possibly Russia had no local defenses against it.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 09-12-2023

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/Teoyaomiquu/status/1701811585386242294?s=20[/tweet]

Seems like both the sub and the landing craft in dry dock got hit. Well done Ukraine. Auspicious timing with the recent news about Musk turning off starlink on a prior attempted attack on Sevastopol.

I can't find the video now but I did see one where it looked like air defense got a hit on something.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - rogpodge - 09-12-2023

(09-12-2023, 10:11 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Seems like both the sub and the landing craft in dry dock got hit. Well done Ukraine. Auspicious timing with the recent news about Musk turning off starlink on a prior attempted attack on Sevastopol.

Wait, what? Even Isaacson admitted he got this wrong. Ukraine asked Musk to extend the service to Crimea (in violation of US sanctions) and Musk said no. Big difference. The media is manipulating you, and you are falling for it. 

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/walter-isaacson-admits-i-made-a-mistake-on-starlink-when-foxs-hemmer-asks-did-you-screw-that-up/

https://fortune.com/2023/09/11/elon-musk-ukraine-starlink-biography-walter-isaacson/

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 09-13-2023

 

Quote:However, getting through the air defenses on a "direct" path would be very difficult. I would guess the launch came from over the Sea of Azov, which would be a "surprise" trajectory and would avoid all the air defense in south Kherson and north Crimea. 

Could each of the boats been tasked to illuminate the targets as their primary goal?

Another missle path alternative is that it waa launched from near Odessa and took a path over the northern Black Sea. Ukraine took over some drilling platforms there a day before, removing a Russian radar system.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 09-13-2023

(09-13-2023, 01:26 AM)M T Wrote:   
Could each of the boats been tasked to illuminate the targets as their primary goal?

Indeed a possibility. It is also something Russia probably would not expect and therefore not have all kinds of laser warning systems looking out to sea at low grazing angles.

Quote:Another missle path alternative is that it waa launched from near Odessa and took a path over the northern Black Sea. Ukraine took over some drilling platforms there a day before, removing a Russian radar system.

True. However Russia has (had?) a very strong air defense system overwatching the northern Black Sea. That was the "expected" line of approach NATO missiles would have taken. Of course, this goes back to Soviet times, so who knows what the state of those systems may be? For quite some years those systems were in Ukrainian hands, and probably didn't get priority as Ukraine didn't expect NATO to attack them :-). To what extent Russia repaired/upgraded these defenses after 2014 I don't know.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 09-13-2023

It does seem that Storm Shadow’s were used. We don’t have a full visual on the sub, but assuming it’s confirmed, I never would’ve expected that. Russian sources are saying it was damaged, which could mean it was destroyed or damaged beyond economical repair.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 09-13-2023

It is still a bit unclear what got hit and where it was located. If a ship is undergoing repair it is generally unable to execute effective damage control. Admittedly, this isn't a Russian "strength" even when the ship is operational, but at least in theory it is possible. While under repair, watertight bulkheads are often full of holes and watertight doors have all kinds of cables/hoses running through them. Major parts of the firefighting system itself are usually offline. This problem was clearly demonstrated in the case of the USS Bonhomme Richard. That is also one reason why the shipyards require so many "fire watchers" during welding operations. If a fire starts, it needs to be extinguished while it is small. If it isn't, it likely will do massive damage.

If one of the ships was actually in a drydock and said drydock was pumped dry, the ship basically has no organic firefighting capability. There is no water for the uptake pumps to access. The support system that actually holds the ship upright is also not designed to absorb missile hits. The ship will pretty much for sure fall off it's supports if any of them fail, and there is no way it can put out a fire. The ship is designed to be supported by the water. In drydock, it is supported by a structure built to match the ship. Without that structure, the ship will undoubtedly be very seriously damaged at best, fire or no fire.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 09-13-2023

(09-13-2023, 06:44 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(09-13-2023, 01:26 AM)M T Wrote:   
Could each of the boats been tasked to illuminate the targets as their primary goal?

Indeed a possibility. It is also something Russia probably would not expect and therefore not have all kinds of laser warning systems looking out to sea at low grazing angles.

Quote:Another missle path alternative is that it waa launched from near Odessa and took a path over the northern Black Sea. Ukraine took over some drilling platforms there a day before, removing a Russian radar system.

True. However Russia has (had?) a very strong air defense system overwatching the northern Black Sea. That was the "expected" line of approach NATO missiles would have taken. Of course, this goes back to Soviet times, so who knows what the state of those systems may be? For quite some years those systems were in Ukrainian hands, and probably didn't get priority as Ukraine didn't expect NATO to attack them :-). To what extent Russia repaired/upgraded these defenses after 2014 I don't know.

As the war goes on, more and more conscripts/volunteers or whatever get sent into combat.  How much training they have makes a difference, but no amount of training can prepare you for the first time people start shooting real bullets at you trying to kill you. You always survive these events in training, but you don't in real life combat.  The better trained learn faster, but the training takes longer.  Morale and leadership play a significant role. How well the two sides deal with this issue will be very important gong forward.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 09-13-2023

(09-13-2023, 07:22 AM)GK3 Wrote:  As the war goes on, more and more conscripts/volunteers or whatever get sent into combat.  How much training they have makes a difference, but no amount of training can prepare you for the first time people start shooting real bullets at you trying to kill you. You always survive these events in training, but you don't in real life combat.  The better trained learn faster, but the training takes longer.  Morale and leadership play a significant role. How well the two sides deal with this issue will be very important gong forward.

Absolutely agree. Another important consideration is whether the new troops are joining an "experienced" unit or are part of a newly-formed unit with few experienced NCOs/officers. Green troops always are a problem until they are no longer "green". Ukraine at the beginning of the war had many green units with no training. They still do, in the sense many home guard units haven't yet seen much combat. This is an ongoing problem. These units simply can't execute offensive maneuvers.

Russia has the same problem, only worse. They are often reconstituting existing units that have effectively been destroyed. On paper, it may be an experienced, even elite formation. In reality, it is a bunch of new guys led by a bunch of new guys. The people assigning troops to tasks may not know the true situation. On top of that, most of the Russian troops don't really know why they are fighting anyway. It is more that they have little choice. The current Russian situation is ideal for them in a way. They don't need troops that can move to contact and fight. They can wait in trenches until the Ukrainians are on top of them. At that point, the Russian troops are fighting to survive. Surrendering in that kind of a fight is just not really an option. Somebody will just shoot you.

It also should be noted that in infantry fights like we are seeing in Ukraine, 90% of the casualties that are caused by infantry fire are caused by a small number of "killers". Everybody may be shooting, but it seems there are always a few troops who ave very effective and everybody else is just there to make noise. This has been studied forever, with an idea of how to improve the effectiveness of the majority. Some significant improvements in training have evolved, but fundamentally this situation is still true.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 09-13-2023

(09-12-2023, 11:32 PM)rogpodge Wrote:  

(09-12-2023, 10:11 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Seems like both the sub and the landing craft in dry dock got hit. Well done Ukraine. Auspicious timing with the recent news about Musk turning off starlink on a prior attempted attack on Sevastopol.

Wait, what? Even Isaacson admitted he got this wrong. Ukraine asked Musk to extend the service to Crimea (in violation of US sanctions) and Musk said no. Big difference. The media is manipulating you, and you are falling for it. 

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/walter-isaacson-admits-i-made-a-mistake-on-starlink-when-foxs-hemmer-asks-did-you-screw-that-up/

https://fortune.com/2023/09/11/elon-musk-ukraine-starlink-biography-walter-isaacson/

If you buy Isaacson's change of tune I have a bridge in Crimea to sell you.

Let's get down to the facts-

Musk is a habitual liar, but even he stated he turned off the starlink. The only real controversy is whether this was a surprise to Ukraine. Ukraine says it was. Isaacson decided to toe the Musk line and destroy his own credibility, by changing his story but he is not the only source on this story. Ukrainians have stated they had used Starlink in the area previously. We have Musk's own statements about avoiding WWIII. We know Musk spoke with the Russian ambassador right before this who threatened a nuclear response. And we know that previously secret Ukrainian naval drones washed up harmlessly on the shore in Crimea.

The sum of the known facts and Musk's own public statements accord with him getting scared by the Russians into interfering with a Ukrainian operation that Ukraine expected to have active Starlink for, thus compromising secret Ukrainian equipment and protecting Russian assets.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - gocard14 - 09-13-2023

I wonder if the objective of damaging/degrading the Black Sea Fleet is primarily a millitary or economic operation. 

If Russia is supply constrained on it's Kalibr missles, which it absolutely seems like it is, then limiting the number of available launch platforms would likely have a minimal impact.  It seems unlikely that the loss of even multiple Kilo's would dramatically change the situation in the Black sea. 

However, due to the high cost and relative fragility of naval vessels (and aircraft, as seen in prior drone strikes) relative to most land-based targets, it does seem like an ideal way to cause massive economic damage with relatively low investment, figuring into the "make the war too painful/expensive" to continue philosophy.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 09-13-2023

I think the attacks are probably on balance more about pain for Russia, but there is definitely some more immediate military value to the strikes. Ukraine just blew up Russia's main dry dock facilities in the Black Sea, and that will probably be difficult to quickly repair. This will mean continued degradation of the Black Sea fleet's operational readiness over time, particularly as Russia can't drive more ships through the Straits of Bosphorus. Their facilities at Novorossiysk are smaller, and the one dry dock space is already repairing a ship previously damaged by Ukraine.

Perhaps more importantly, Russia knows that Sevastopol is not safe from this sort of attack . This could have the effect of drawing even more scarce AD resources away from the frontline, or may mean Russia relocates some of their naval assets to farther Black Sea ports.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - fullmetal - 09-13-2023

This degrades Russia's capacity to impose a blockade on Ukrainian ports right?  Or are Russian missiles enough to do that?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 09-13-2023

Russia has air, sea, and ground launched missiles that could target shipping. They could do so even if they didn't occupy Crimea, and this strike probably doesn't really change anything in that regard.

But the farther Ukraine can push Russia away from their coasts, it becomes more difficult and expensive to maintain a blockade. FWIW Ukraine has already had ships defy the blockade, and they have not been targeted. Hard to see any way for Ukraine to unilaterally deprive Russia of the ability to credibly threaten Black Sea shipping though. Until there is some sort of diplomatic agreement regarding shipping, there will be a risk that Russia may target it.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 09-13-2023

Destroying a Kilo submarine is a big deal. It can launch missiles from anywhere in the Black Sea and remain unseen. Missiles launched by aircraft are almost immediately detectable because their launch platform is. SLCMs can fly a long way at low altitude from an undetected launch platform. That is a "big deal". The landing ship is also a big deal if Ukraine really intends to cut the land bridge and the Kerch bridge. Having little or no ability to supply troops in Crimea by sea would make the isolation of Crimea easier. It is a step on the road. Obviously wrecking the dry dock also means fixing / maintaining ships in the Black Sea just got a lot more difficult.

Equally importantly, IMO, it proves Ukraine can probably hit the Kerch bridge the same way. It is only a matter of when. Yes, the first N attacks may fail, but N +1 could be a doozey :).

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 09-13-2023

Goose, with ATACMS/Storm Shadow missiles, assuming at least one or more missiles score a direct hit, will this for sure lead to the Kerch bridge being destroyed (at least in one section) or will the results be similar to the HIMARS strikes on the Antonov bridge last year? I think clearly the train section of the bridge is what matters, and taking that out for an extended period of time could make a big difference. While the first attack took that part out for a period of time, it seems to mostly be luck, since there was an oil tanker train at the same time. The most recent attack in the bridge I believe had two hits, but the one on the train section didn’t seem to be effective.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 09-14-2023

(09-13-2023, 08:32 PM)Treefence Wrote:  Goose, with ATACMS/Storm Shadow missiles, assuming at least one or more missiles score a direct hit, will this for sure lead to the Kerch bridge being destroyed (at least in one section) or will the results be similar to the HIMARS strikes on the Antonov bridge last year? I think clearly the train section of the bridge is what matters, and taking that out for an extended period of time could make a big difference. While the first attack took that part out for a period of time, it seems to mostly be luck, since there was an oil tanker train at the same time. The most recent attack in the bridge I believe had two hits, but the one on the train section didn’t seem to be effective.

Storm Shadow has a bigger warhead than ATACMS by almost a factor of 2, 400 kG vs 500 lbs. The result of a single hit on the rail bridge, which is indeed the most important, is hard to predict. A Storm Shadow should be able to use it's imaging capability to actually hit a support tower, which is what could actually bring down the bridge. How well that works in practice is unclear. For sure, I wouldn't bet on a single missile doing the job. It may take several, but the bridge can be taken down. It just may take quite a few attacks.

A Taurus missile would be even better option, with a 480 kg warhead that is supposedly even more capable than a Storm Shadow. Unclear if Ukraine will ever get these weapons. It appears that ATACMS is still off the table. I am not surprised at this. I am surprised that it keeps being raised as a possibility. It would be a major policy change to do this and is therefore unlikely.

An attack by a submerged drone would potentially be better. It can carry a larger warhead, and can be detonated under water near a support pillar. That is the best kind of explosion to take down the bridge. The water hammer can more easily destroy the structure than an explosion in free air. The technology to do that isn't beyond the state of the art, but it also isn't exactly COTS. I would be surprised if Ukraine isn't working on it. In the meantime, Storm Shadows will be tried (repeatedly) I would imagine.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 09-14-2023

Seems like Ukraine is getting some serious attacks going.  It almost seems they're pivoting from the push against the front lines to coming in from the rear.  But maybe it is all coordinated

  Ukraine says it has destroyed a sophisticated Russian air defence system in occupied Crimea.

Quote:"After disabling the radar stations [with drones], the navy units hit the S300 and S400 'Triumph' systems, worth $1.2bn, by two Neptune cruise missiles," the source said.

Of course, we don't yet know if they destroyed those systems or only slightly damaged them.

I don't think it was mentioned here that there were reports that Ukraine took out a $100M long range radar system in Crimea a few weeks ago. (BBC didn't carry it, but other news sources did.)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 09-14-2023

Satellite imagery from the S-400 strike.
[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1702359573141557271?s=20[/tweet]

And some other fun recent videos, one a USV attack on a Russian ship escorting Russian shipping, as well as aftermath of the Storm Shadow strikes on the Ropucha landing craft in dry dock.

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/UAControlMap/status/1702376151497207998?s=20[/tweet]
[Tweet]https://twitter.com/Teoyaomiquu/status/1702363193987809627?s=20[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 09-15-2023

More and more rumors coming out that Ramzan Kadyrov, head of the Chechen Republic in Russia is in a coma.  Not sure if it's true, but I wonder whats next for Chechnya. There's definitely a decent amount of resentment in that region, and this would be a great time to make some noise, but Russia has proven to be very efficient at removing dissent.

---