OT: Putin's War in Ukraine

[Bestbrian]

Lt. Chornoval is badass. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/19/w...ussia-war.html

[Raellus]

I think a couple of the points made in this article might have been overstated*, but, overall, I agree with the author's assessment.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...s-already-lost

I'm interested in your thoughts.

*For example, I still think that Putin could stop the offensive now, negotiate to keep a few key territorial gains (Donbass and a land corridor to Crimea), and then convincingly make the argument to the Russian people that the war was a success (controlling the media will help with that).

-

[Vespers War]

Not thoughts about the linked article, but one thing that's come up in discussions I've been having elsewhere is that Russia's active protection systems are turning out to be largely ineffective against modern anti-tank missiles because their maximum elevation means they can't engage a pop-up top-attack missile like Javelin or Spike. None of them - not Drozd, Drozd-2, Arena, Arena-M, or Afghanit - can elevate much beyond 20 degrees. Afghanit can only engage with smoke dischargers, and none of the others can do anything. This is where Trophy ends up having an advantage because it can elevate almost to vertical.

The Russian APS systems would still be useful against the older systems being sent like LAW or AT-4, but their ERA packages can also defeat those lighter warheads, even one as light as Kontakt-1. Since Russian defensive systems generally don't work well together (I think Afghanit/Malachit are the only APS and ERA that can be on the same vehicle at the same time), the older APS may be virtually worthless on heavy armored vehicles (e.g. tanks) these days. Anything they can protect against, ERA can also protect against for similar weight, less power draw, and generally better odds against the first strike (possibly worse against follow-up attacks depending on the attacker's accuracy).

IFVs with APS systems would be useful because IFV-mounted ERA tends to be very unfriendly to dismounted troops, and soldiers are trying to use the lighter rockets against them when possible, but other than the BMP-3M and Kurganets (neither of which are in serial production AFAIK), I don't think Russia has IFVs with APS.

[swaghauler]

They just did an interview with the Canadian Sniper whom the Russians claimed to have killed in Kyiv.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Vespers War

Not thoughts about the linked article, but one thing that's come up in discussions I've been having elsewhere is that Russia's active protection systems are turning out to be largely ineffective against modern anti-tank missiles because their maximum elevation means they can't engage a pop-up top-attack missile like Javelin or Spike. None of them - not Drozd, Drozd-2, Arena, Arena-M, or Afghanit - can elevate much beyond 20 degrees. Afghanit can only engage with smoke dischargers, and none of the others can do anything. This is where Trophy ends up having an advantage because it can elevate almost to vertical.

The Russian APS systems would still be useful against the older systems being sent like LAW or AT-4, but their ERA packages can also defeat those lighter warheads, even one as light as Kontakt-1. Since Russian defensive systems generally don't work well together (I think Afghanit/Malachit are the only APS and ERA that can be on the same vehicle at the same time), the older APS may be virtually worthless on heavy armored vehicles (e.g. tanks) these days. Anything they can protect against, ERA can also protect against for similar weight, less power draw, and generally better odds against the first strike (possibly worse against follow-up attacks depending on the attacker's accuracy).

IFVs with APS systems would be useful because IFV-mounted ERA tends to be very unfriendly to dismounted troops, and soldiers are trying to use the lighter rockets against them when possible, but other than the BMP-3M and Kurganets (neither of which are in serial production AFAIK), I don't think Russia has IFVs with APS.

Time to go back to the old tried and true method of hanging short lengths of track links and spare road wheels off of the hull. Uparmored and suspension spares all rolled into one!

[kato13]

Related to what Rae said, I don't think Ukraine or the West is going to accept territorial loss.

I am thinking this is going to move into a new phase where Ukraine is going to need to dislodge entrenched Russian (I almost typed Soviet lol) troops whom have their backs against their own border.

I can't really see how the West can give Ukraine an advantage tech wise. They will need Artillery and Airstrikes to dislodge them. Our current assistance IMO mostly helps on easy strikes against moving targets and logistical elements out alone.

What are we looking at? Guided shells? Counter battery radars? Anything like the Dome system would be vulnerable to HARM type weapons correct? Drones would be useful, but will have serious attrition rates and would probably be vulnerable to jamming (we wont share our most jam resistant ones).

What would you give the Ukrainian in this new phase?

[Vespers War]

Jokingly, I'd give them Trophy now that their tank corps has grown over the course of the war by virtue of capturing more tanks than they lost.

More seriously, I believe I read somewhere that Israel nixed transferring Iron Dome technology to Ukraine, and I presume they'd do the same with Trophy.

Some things I'd provide:
shore-based anti-ship missile batteries*
more drones**
as many LAW and AT-4 as they want***
technical and planning assistance blowing up rail lines connecting Russia to Ukraine****

*Denying Russia free transit of waters they view as theirs will both infuriate them and greatly reduce the value they get from having annexed Crimea. The Ukrainian Navy cannot stand up to the Russian Navy in a fight, but denying Russia large areas of the Black Sea will be useful.

**Even if they're not the most current models, existing recon drones and loitering munitions give Ukraine better tactical awareness and the ability to deny easy movement by Russian forces.

***These systems are no longer effective against tanks, but against anything lighter, or against bunkers or soldiers in regular buildings, they are still effective. Blowing up logistics convoys will still be a good way to weaken Russian forces.

****Russia is still heavily rail-dependent for logistics. They ship things to forward depots by rail and generally only use road transport for the military equivalent of "last mile" delivery. No trains, no supplies.

Dislodging Russian forces won't be pretty. If they have to be evicted by force, it's going to probably involve street-to-street clearing operations in the urban areas. Tactically, stuff that an individual soldier can hump is going to be critical. Strategically, denying logistical capabilities by rail or sea are the main areas where I'd go for supplying them with non-man-portable systems.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by kato13

What would you give the Ukrainian in this new phase?

Assistance for managing their displaced population in the western half of the country. Everyone's gonna want to go home, but "home" isn't there any more for a lot of them, and it'll be a matter of years before reconstruction really is a thing. The sooner everyone who's displaced can be resettled, find permanent housing, start contributing to the economy again, get their kids back into school, and re-establish themselves with social/tribal connections to new communities, the sooner Ukraine's long-term economic and political prospects improve.

- C.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by kato13

What would you give the Ukrainian in this new phase?

NODs. Ukraine doesn't have many. They've been using the CLU units from Javelin systems for night vision, to good effect. Luckily, Russian troops aren't very well-equipped with NODs either.

Some sort of western MLRS system. Something that can shoot-and-scoot, and fire a number of different rocket payloads. Imagine what a barrage of rockets dropping anti-armor submunitions on that miles-long Russian convoy outside of Kiev would do.

If Ukraine is ever going to take back territory currently held by Russian and/or Russian-backed forces, its going to need more artillery, more tactical airpower, and more AFVs. Despite the widespread reports of the demise of the MBT, troops are going to find it hard to make gains on the ground without supporting armor.

-

[Targan]

Originally Posted by kato13

What would you give the Ukrainian in this new phase?

How about what they gave up in return for the Budapest Memorandum, which Putin has gleefully wiped his arse with?

I kid of course, but that whole turn of events means that no nuke-possessing nation will willingly give up its nukes voluntarily EVER again. The lesson is clear - hold onto your nukes, and you won't get invaded. And I say that as someone who really doesn't like nukes.