Russki's still fighting dumb and getting wrecked. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/01/w...sia-tanks.html

Quantity has a quality all its own
 

My concern is that The Russians might be able to afford to continue to "fight dumb and get wrecked" and still win. It's not just me.

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/11596...rainian-troops

The author of the piece spoke to a Ukrainian sniper named Andriy. Here's what Andriy has to say about Russia's raw conscript soldiers:

"'The Russian mobilizational reserve is pretty much infinite', says Andriy, 'which means that they have the luxury to make mistakes. They can lose a brigade or they can lose a platoon, and some of those people are going to survive and they can share experience with the new conscripts.'"

He's got a point. Regarding his own [Ukrainian military], Andriy says,

"'Most of the people that were ready to take guns and fight, they came in the first two months and those people care coming to an end.' He means that they are mostly dead. He says the quality of the new soldiers is much lower. 'Some of them, they don't know how to hold a rifle.'"

-

That's the popular view of Russia that's been burned into our head since the Napoleonic Wars and WWII through the Cold War, but current Russian demography is pitiful(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia).

Pair that with an authoritarian system that's trying to fight a war while hiding it from its urban population centers (which precludes drafting large numbers from Moscow, St. Petersburg, etc) and there aren't endless waves of Ivans to throw at the trenches anymore, especially of 18-49 year old males from rural backwaters. They might very well run out of men to crew their mothballed T-62s long before they run out of the vehicles themselves.

Keep in mind that Ukraine's demographics aren't much better, but the circumstances of this conflict allows them to mass mobilize a military backed by a highly motivated civilian population with a direct stake in the outcome, which gives them a higher percentage of a smaller pool. We'll have a better idea where this is all heading when the Ukrainian counteroffensives begin.

It's also worth noting that Russia's other recent(ish) wars have been against much smaller nations. Chechnya has a total population of 1.4 million. Georgia's population is 3.7 million. Ukraine has a population of 43.8 million. There's a literal order of magnitude of difference in the scale of what Russia's attempting to do here, and while the geography and type of war is much different, the size of the population Russia is trying to break the morale of is roughly the same as the population of Afghanistan.

It's additionally worth noting these countries were physically much smaller than Ukraine as well. A smaller front let Russia concentrate it's more capable units into a much smaller area. With Ukraine there's over a thousand kilometers of border plus the border with Belarus.

While it's a lot of border for Ukraine to defend it also means it's a lot of border for Russia to hold once the invasion starts.

How the War Ends in Ukraine
 

This guy knows more than all of us here so I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss his assessment.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-n...M0BhoDZFyvnOHI

Here's a taste:

Q: "Last year, you told me, at a very early stage of the war, that Ukraine was winning on Twitter but that Russia was winning on the battlefield. A lot has happened since then, but is that still the case?"

A: "Unfortunately. Let’s think of a house. Let’s say that you own a house and it has ten rooms. And let’s say that I barge in and take two of those rooms away, and I wreck those rooms. And, from those two rooms, I’m wrecking your other eight rooms and you’re trying to beat me back. You’re trying to evict me from the two rooms. You push out a little corner, you push out another corner, maybe. But I’m still there and I’m still wrecking. And the thing is, you need your house. That’s where you live. It’s your house and you don’t have another. Me, I’ve got another house, and my other house has a thousand rooms. And, so, if I wreck your house, are you winning or am I winning?"

It's not all doom and gloom, but the expert does throw cold water on the idea of Ukraine achieving its stated victory conditions. The whole article is definitely worth a read- it's definitely the best macro assessment of the war that I've seen to date.

-

Good news for T2K lovers! There's a Giraffe!

The bad news - it's this thing:
https://i.redd.it/z8wnauspljla1.jpg

It's an MT-LB with a 25mm 2M-3 naval turret welded on top.

Speculation
 

Bakhmut

Is the Ukrainian high command making a foolish mistake by continuing to defend Bakhmut, or is it laying a deadly trap for the Russians?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...t-on-the-brink

I've been reading every reputable report on the battle that I can find and no one- outside of the Ukrainian high command, perhaps (and even that's not clear)- seems to know what's really going on there, strategically-speaking. Either the Ukrainians are being very clever, and luring the Russians into a trap, or they're being very foolish and wasting precious manpower and resources on a city with much greater symbolic than strategic significance.

It's a meat-grinder for both sides, but the Russians can better afford the heavy losses. In some ways, Bakhmut has become the Stalingrad of the 21st century. Is Ukraine going to make the same mistake that German high command made in 1942? Or are they setting the Russians up for a taste of their own Uranus?

What do you think is going on there?


Combat Aircraft

There's been speculation about if/when the West will provide combat aircraft to Ukraine since the beginning of the war. Recent reports have been all over the place, but the aggregate of reportage leans towards a qualified yes.

Yesterday, a local Tucson, AZ TV news station reported that two Ukrainian pilots are visiting Davis Monthan AFB (where USAF pilots train on both the A-10 and the F-16). Is this a sign or a red herring?

Do you think the west is going to provide combat aircraft to Ukraine any time soon?

-

I think aircraft are a possibility...

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/0...f-16s-00085556

...but I think as long as they have airframes flying, NATO will seek to do the retrofit thing, like HARMs, JDAMs, etc.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/28/u...ns-russia.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/23/u...ns-russia.html

I mean how far can this go? Who knows. UIA 737s loaded with AIM-120 AMRAAMs? Hellfires on Mi-8 Hip pylons?

Also, they are a year into the war and have airframes flying against what at one point was the 2nd largest air force in the world. That's crazy and baller.

I think Ukraine is buying time. Time to train units, time to receive Western equipment, and time for rasputitsa to end so that they can engage in maneuver warfare. A lot of the Ukrainian losses at Bakhmut are second-tier units, the TDFs and light infantry that are useful fighting on defense from prepared positions but can't attack a kitten successfully. It sucks to be them, but the longer they hold out, the more Ukraine's offensive units can refit and train for an attack once the mud dries up.


Tangentially, piecing together numbers from Oryx and making some estimates based on proportions of known losses and differences between Oryx's visually confirmed losses and UA's estimated losses, Russia has lost somewhere around half of its modern tanks, defining modern as the T-72B3, T-72B3M, T-80BVM, and T-90M (the four models with the enlarged autoloader that allows use of Svinets-2 rounds). Russia still has a lot of tanks, but their tank forces are weaker now than at the start of the war. Because of shortages of imported thermal imager components, tanks are receiving thermal sights that are roughly equivalent to what the US had in Desert Storm. Allegedly even elite units like 1st Guards Tank Army are including T-62 tanks in their formations, which is slightly eyebrow-raising.

Ukraine has effectively fixed the front for the muddy season with Bakhmut. NATO's estimates are the Russians are suffering a 5:1 loss ratio of personnel, Ukraine claims 7:1. The Russians are also losing AFVs left and right as each of their attempts at encirclement have been huge failures.

Bakhmut isn't cheap to hold but it completely blunted Russia's big push they had planned. Ukraine has a solid GLOC protected by high ground they control. By all accounts they've been conducting an orderly withdrawal over the past week.

I don't think the point is to keep Bakhmut forever, just continue fixing the Russians and bleeding their forces in preparation for a Ukrainian counterattack elsewhere once the mud dries enough for move heavy AFVs freely over fields.

Keep in mind Bakhmut is now little more than rubble. Might as well make the rubble bounce there then fall back and have another city leveled.

Bakhmut
You're right that no one beyond arguably Ukrainian high command and NATO/US military advisors have any idea what's really going on here. I did read recently (I forget where) that estimates are putting Russian losses in the area at 1:5-7 in favor of Ukraine, and that a going theory was that Ukraine is simply willing to trade favorably against Russian forces to bleed Russia down a bit until western assets arrive in theater. I have no idea whether that casualty estimate is accurate or not, and I certainly won't believe Ukrainian or Russian estimates on the matter, but if true it might help explain the thought processes involved.

The optimist in me hopes that Ukraine is planning to let Russia advance on the flanks and then cut them off/encircle their forward elements with Ukraine's reserves. The pessimist is convinced that Ukraine just doesn't have that many forces still available and will be forced to start pulling back due to overwhelming numbers of Russian forces despite their training and technological advantages.

The only things we know for sure are that Bakhmut is a meatgrinder for at least the Russian forces - we know that because Russia has been throwing attacks at the city since August at least, with shelling of it beginning back in May. The fact that the Russian army hasn't been able to take Bakhmut in nearly 7 months despite throwing huge numbers of men and equipment at the city indicates that Russia is having a very difficult time gaining any real ground in Ukraine. Especially when paired with what happened at Vuhledar. We know that Ukraine has now left the eastern part of the city, but it seems to have been an orderly withdrawal, and Ukrainian forces are keeping a corridor open to the west. Whether that indicates that Ukraine will continue hold the western part of the city, or counterattack, is anybody's guess. The fact that there's a risk of encirclement and Ukraine hasn't pulled out yet indicates that Ukrainian leadership is either making a mistake by holding the destroyed town at all costs, or that they're smart and know something we don't. So far in the war, Ukraine's been very effective in their decision making, while Russia has been flailing all over the place, so that gives me some hope that Bakhmut is no exception and that there's some kind of plan.

Aircraft
I will happily eat crow here, but I don't think the west is going to be sending F16s to Ukraine anytime soon. At least not the US. It would represent quite a heavy escalation of forces, and could lead to further escalation on Russia's side. Not only, but as others have mentioned, the prospect of getting planes, parts, maintenance crew, and pilots trained, is likely going to take a year or more. Even if the process starts now, we're looking at a 2024 rollout. While it's certainly possible the war could go on that long, the runway to implementation feels too long, so to speak.

What concerns me is that numerous reports seem to indicate that the US is advising Ukraine to pull out of the city but the Ukrainians continue to insist that they can and will hold it. Some reports indicate an orderly withdrawal is underway; others that reinforcements are still being sent into the city. What's really going on there?

The optimist in me wants to believe that the Ukrainians are setting the Russians up for something like you described (a-la 1942's Operation Uranus v the German 6th Army salient at Stalingrad). The pessimist in me worries that Ukrainian leadership is stubbornly wasting troops for primarily symbolic reasons.

I saw a figure today of 1:3. At that rate, Ukraine will run out of troops before Russia does.

You're right, and I'm trying to take reassurance from that fact, but I too worry that maybe Ukraine is finally making a really bad call in Bakhmut.

To anyone who hasn't read it yet, I highly recommend this piece from the New Yorker about the war to date and likely long-term outcomes.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-n...M0BhoDZFyvnOHI

-

Just for funsies, I decided to compare The Military Balance 2022's estimates of Russia's active tank force to Oryx's visually confirmed losses of Russian tanks. This has the obvious gap of not accounting for reactivated tanks, but it gives at least an idea of how their losses compare to their original tank fleet. For the purposes of this count, I included derivatives (so a T-72B obr. 1989 is counted as a T-72B), but did not include other variants (so a T-72A loss is not counted at all because Russia had no active T-72A in February 2022), and also did not count the T-90S even though they're identical to T-90A because Russia stole them from India, they weren't part of the pre-war fleet.

Older (pre-Svinets) tanks
T-72B/BA - 650 in service - 354 lost - 54.5% fleet loss
T-80BV/U - 310 in service - 357 lost - 115.2% fleet loss
T-90/A - 350 in service - 35 lost - 10.0% fleet loss

Newer (Svinets-capable autoloader) tanks
T-72B3 - 850 in service - 294 lost - 34.6% fleet loss
T-72B3M - 530 in service - 209 lost - 39.4% fleet loss
T-80BVM - 170 in service - 71 lost - 41.8% fleet loss
T-90M - 67 in service - 14 lost - 20.9% fleet loss

Being mildly flippant, if we're not sure what's going on, imagine how confused the Russians must be!

Yeouch! I've been paying attention to the Russian losses but this is a great perspective. I'm just amazed the brightest military minds in Russia have settled on a Zapp Brannigan strategy. Unfortunately for them it seems the Ukrainians upgraded to 32-bit unsigned integers, their kill limits aren't going to hit a limit any time soon.

I'm also amused at the idea that somehow Russia is just playing dumb and their real offensive will start any day now. Like they've got some secret competent army waiting to be let loose.

Another line I expect Russian command has been uttering.
https://media.tenor.com/yZsZ9gs_C70A...-brannigan.gif

And to think, that's only the losses which have been visually confirmed with photographic or video evidence!

It's difficult to know what Russia has left, but with T-62s already having entered the field, they can't be terribly happy with their armor losses thus far. I'd wager that they've probably lost somewhere between a third and a half of all of their available tank capacity, nationwide. Who knows how fast they're able to manufacture new machines, but it can't be enough to cope with that kind of widespread destruction of forces.

IMO, these kinds of reports too unreliable to take very seriously - even if it's true that the US advisors have been saying this, for all we know it could just be an intel operation to draw in more Russian/Wagner units for summary destruction. I have a feeling that we're not going to know for sure until we know, if you get my meaning.

I've seen the figure of 20 new builds per month from one particular plant. A couple of other plants are "refurbishing" older models (like the T-62), and/or repairing battle-damaged tanks.

This recent piece gives some insight into Russian MBT production.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...h=27a19f812061

-

Nice find. 20 new builds a month isn't going to be nearly enough, especially not with western sanctions and lack of quality optics. Russia's best shot, I imagine, is going to be pleading with China.

Yeah those production/refurbishment estimates are likely based on pre-war levels which means before sanctions came into play. While sanctions won't mean Russia can't build any tanks, they're just more likely to be more equivalent to export/older models than top of the line models.

As we've seen even their top of the line kit are vulnerable to ATGMs, drones, poor logistics, and shitty tactics. I haven't seen any evidence the Russian army has learned any lessons along those lines in the past year. Even if they can roll out 900 tanks a year it doesn't amount to much strategically if they're abandoned or destroyed a few miles past the Russian lines of control.

The joke is that the newly raised Russian troops are receiving twice as much training as the last round of troops.

2 days of training instead of 1 day.

The "one particular plant" is Uralvagonzavod's plant in Nizhny Tagil. It also refurbishes around 8 tanks per month. Three other plants refurbish a total of around 17 tanks per month. One is Omsk Transmash, which works on T-72 and T-80 tanks, bringing them up to T-72B3, T-72B3M, or T-80BVM standard. Another is the 103rd Armored Plant near Chita, which upgrades T-62 to T-62M. I don't know what the third plant is.

What a country! /yakov_smirnoff

The bad news:

Some western analysts believe UAF casualties in the fighting for Bakmhut could hamper plans for a spring counteroffensive. The UAF is reportedly running low on ammunition and trained soldiers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...tion-shortage/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64955537

The good news:

Ukraine is finally going to receive more MiG-29s! Multiple reports indicate that Poland and Slovakia will soon deliver MiGs to the UAF.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ines-air-force

By now, I think we can predict Putin's reaction to the combat aircraft deliveries. More nuclear saber-rattling and a fresh barrage of missile attacks on Ukraine's infrastructure, resulting in even more civilian casualties, to be sure.

Slava Ukraini!

-

I was reading a bit on the MiG-29, particularly impressions from NATO pilots when they got to fly East German examples after reunification, and the consensus seems to be "great knife-fighter, but good luck surviving to get there." In any of its Soviet-era configurations, it's a very head-down aircraft due to a lack of automation and the need to manually configure switches and knobs, and it's intended to be guided to a target by ground control. Its radar only has something like a 43 mile range.

Both the Slovakian and Polish Fulcrums should be more pilot-friendly, since they received upgrades with NATO-compliant electronics that more heads-up. Slovakia has 9 upgraded single-seat aircraft and 2 twin-seat (originally they had 10 single-seat, but one crashed during a training exercise). Some are apparently in fairly rough shape, and IIRC only 4 were still active immediately before they were retired last year. I believe Poland upgraded 16 aircraft. Neither received any sort of Western weapons integration as far as I know, so they're still going to need Aphid, Adder, or Archer missiles for air-to-air combat, and Slovakia was out of those by the time they retired their aircraft.

Ukraine does have some upgraded MiG-29, the MiG-29MU1 and MiG-29MU2. The MU1 has electronics upgrades, extending the radar range to ~60 miles, adding GPS to the navigation, and using a NATO-standard radio, while the single MU2 also integrates precision air-to-ground weapons (a bit questionable IMO since the Fulcrum has a pretty pathetic payload of 4 tonnes, slightly more than half an F-16's payload). I don't know how many were upgraded to MU1 standard, and there's just the lone MU2 (which has been serving in an air defense role because they need that more than a bomb truck).

Slovakia's also sending half a battery of Kub/Gainful SAM launchers out of the four batteries that they had retained for training purposes, along with 200 missiles for the launchers.

Regarding the nuclear saber-rattling, Russia seemed to back off of that track a while ago as the international community, and particularly China, seemed displeased by the constant threats of nuclear war. Given Putin's need for China's support, especially now, I don't think he can risk pissing off Xi by making empty threats about nukes. I suppose we'll see though. Definitely agreed that we'll see more missile strikes on civvies though. :(

Check out this article about Israeli pilots test flying Polish MiG-29s against their own IAF aircraft in the 1990s. The Israelis quoted in the piece were really impressed, at the time.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...m-test-program

One of the pieces I read suggested that the Ukrainians might need to pull the more advanced western avionics from the Polish and Slovakian MiGs because their own Fulcrums still use older, less capable Soviet-era avionics.

On the other hand, as the Ukrainians have been able to mount HAARM missiles on their own MiG-29s successfully, how difficult would it be for them to mod their Fulcrums in order to use AIM-9 Sidewinders and/or other Western AAMs? AMRAAM would be a game-changer for the Ukrainians, but the US has stated that it is not in the cards (citing concerns re escalation and advanced Western active radar homing AAMs falling into Russian hands).

I hope Xi can talk some sense into Putin, but that's like the Wolf advising the Fox to take it easy on the henhouse. ;)

-

I think a lot of Putin's nuclear comments were misinterpreted by the West as being directed towards them, when they were actually directed towards China. Remember, he has a giant, exposed, resource rich ass hanging out there right in China's face. There's no way he could keep China out, and there wouldn't be anyone on the planet willing to help him do it.

About a third of Ukraine's Fulcrums received avionics upgrades over the last decade, so it's a mix of Soviet-era and modern equipment on Ukraine's MiG-29 fleet.

Particularly given that most of the Slovakian MiGs are allegedly in terrible mechanical shape, the upgraded avionics are practically the only reason to take them. I think it's more likely they'll cannibalize some of their un-upgraded MiGs to get the Slovakian ones back into flying condition, since that would probably be slightly easier than pulling the electronics to install in the Ukrainian jets, which would be the other way to get good systems into the air.

Russian Tac Nukes in Belarus
 

That's an interesting take. Your point about Russia's vulnerable east is well taken, but why would Putin want to risk antagonizing one of his very few allies, and by far the most powerful?

This latest threat was prompted by the UK's announcement that it would provide Ukraine with DI ammunition for donated Challenger II MBTs.

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/25/11660...eapons-belarus

There seems to be a clear-cut cause and effect relationship between Putin's nuclear threats over the past year or so and actions taken by NATO nations to provide military assistance to Ukraine.

-

I'm not so sure about that. It appears as though Russia may have been pushing to move nukes into Belarus for quite some time, as a measure of strengthening control over the puppet-state.

https://understandingwar.org/backgro...anuary-11-2022

Plus, accusing the west of providing nuclear arms to Ukraine, despite those arms actually being entirely free of fissionable material as we all know, seems like the thinnest of possible justifications.

Granted, but my point still stands. Although the stationing of Russian tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus may have been planned for some time prior to the announcement, the timing of Putin's public statements re same are not coincidental. Even if the "warnings" are a fait accompli, the public pronouncements are calculated, purposeful, and directed at NATO (not China).

100%

-

Ukraine is apparently about to receive 15 Viktor self-propelled anti-aircraft guns manufactured by Excalibur Army in Czech Republic. These are...well, are they still technicals if they're made in a factory?

See, the Viktor is a Toyota truck with modifications. They put a ZU-2 in the bed of the truck, which is a twin 14.5mm anti-aircraft mount. It has a day and night anti-aircraft sight and a daytime anti-ground sight. It's rigged for remote operation from the cab of the truck, so the gun doesn't need a crew member physically operating it. Each gun has a box of 300 rounds, another 300 rounds on the gun mount, and more ammo in the bed of the truck.

They're moderately sophisticated systems to use simple weapons against drones and other low-end aircraft. They're also something that would be pretty useful in a Twilight War scenario, with a base vehicle that's pretty common and easy to find parts for and a useful gun system that's rugged and reliable and usable from inside the vehicle. Armor's going to be non-existent, but that's true of pretty much anything that can be kept fueled and maintained by a small group.

Finland Joins NATO
 

Finland is now a NATO member. And on the 74th anniversary of the alliance's founding, no less! Who'd have thunk it?

Could anyone have predicted this turn of events during the waning of the [1st] Cold War? Or 30 years ago? Or 20? Or even 10?

https://apnews.com/article/nato-finl...d5b752d69d76eb

Putin goes to war in large part to prevent Ukraine from increasing its ties to the EU and NATO and the result is... NATO expands, and Russia's border with NATO nations doubles.

Way to go, Vlad.

Slava Ukraini!

-

This is a very T2k article about the attrition of troops and vehicles in one Guards parachute regiment:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65179074

- C.

Apparently a former 27th Separate Guards Motorized Rifle Brigade T-90A that was captured at Kharkiv in September by Ukraine's 92nd Separate Mechanized Brigade was left at a truck stop in Louisiana when its hauler broke down. So far, nobody's claiming ownership of it. I'm waiting for shenanigans to ensue.

I wonder why the UAF didn't keep it and put it to use. If it were given to the US gov't for intel purposes, that would make sense but, apparently, that is not the case. The War Zone writer believes it may now belong to a private owner. :confused:

-

That's gonna be an awkward conversation with BATFE if those ERA blocks are still live. To say nothing of the main gun.

- C.

This was my very first thought as well. I can't imagine the ATF is going to be thrilled to have a working MBT in the hands of a civvie roaming somewhere in the US.

Update: looks like it was/is headed to Aberdeen, so it's unlikely to show up on eBay Motors any time soon.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...mes-into-focus

- C.