The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Below, the Ukrainian solider who died because of a French news outlet.
@TF1Info, a French news outlet, recently visited the Donbas to follow a Ukrainian unit using drones to target Russian locations in the area — failure of operational security due to a news outlet deciding to gets a Ukrainian killed. The news crew told the soldiers they would blur and obscure any confidential material, then rushed back to file their story (another stupid choice), and did not obscure anything confidential before publishing immediately.

Upon broadcast, not a single thing was blurred, including maps of Ukrainian positions — the Russians used the footage to target the location, killing one.
 
Last edited:

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
CNN published a story yesterday claiming that the US will soon announce the purchase of "medium to long range surface to air missile system" for Ukraine: US to announce purchase of medium- to long-range surface-to-air missile defense system for Ukraine

A few things that are strange about this article, in particular the reference to "long range" SAM (they even say range of more than 100 miles), at the same time claiming the system being NASAMS. Nobody, not even the manufacturer, is referring to NASAMS as "long range". The newly integrated AMRAAM-ER (seems to be the ESSM body with the AMRAAM seeker/head) provides 50% increase in range and 70% increase in altitude over the AMRAAM putting the NASAMS squarely in the medium range category, but not in the long range. Some sources put the range at 33 km (20 miles) for the AMRAAM version, which would put the -ER variant at 50 km (30 miles). National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) Nasams har nytt missil med større rekkevidde – nå kommer GaN-radaren som matcher

Anyway, great news if true, the latest NASAMS is very capable.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
A very interesting article, using probability calculus in combination with logical reasoning to reach the conclusion that the US should support Ukraine to win the war: https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar...he_us_the_monster_is_in_the_house_839295.html

The math and the logics seem sound to me -- thus I think the main focus should be on his premises. Did the author get the premises right? Impossible to tell, but my gut feeling says his premises are not too far off. Even with some margin of error in the premises the conclusion will not change. Thus the US should provide substantial support to Ukraine to ensure Ukrainian victory.
[A]ny estimate will inevitably be imprecise. But that imprecision cuts both ways: the risks could be higher than 1% as well as lower (which would increase the payoff to regime change). One would have to be very certain that the risk of a deterrence failure was remarkably close to zero to think that the risk of a nuclear exchange with the Putin regime is insignificant. Given the evidence we have, it is (in my view) impossible to honestly claim certainty here. And if you cannot say for certain that the risk of a deterrence failure is 0 (and you can’t), then you must assume that cumulative long run probability of a nuclear exchange with Russia is substantial.
Looking at it from the opposite perspective:
The argument against supporting Ukraine begins with the premise that the fate of Ukraine is not of vital interest to the U.S. but is of vital interest to Russia. Opposing the Russian invasion will therefore inevitably raise the immediate risk of a nuclear war while also costing a non-trivial amount. Consequently, while the U.S. should deplore Russia’s invasion on ethical grounds, actively opposing it is simply not worth either the risk or the cost that doing so would necessarily involve.
[...]
The flaw in this argument is that it implicitly and incorrectly assumes that the cumulative long run probability of a nuclear war with Russia is minimal if the U.S. does not intervene in Ukraine. Arguing against U.S. intervention in Ukraine because of escalation risk is therefore analogous to telling a person dying of a heart condition to avoid surgery because surgery is dangerous. Such advice is not wrong because surgery is not dangerous, it is wrong because surgery is less dangerous than doing nothing.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Some Ukrainian units have suffered terrible losses. Interview with one company commander who has lost 80% of his (elite) unit, either killed or injured:

Ukraine war: 80% of troops killed or injured in elite military unit, says commander - and its future is unclear | World News | Sky News

A pity US/NATO did not provide more heavy support, much earlier. The fear of escalation hold them back, unfortunately.

It will take a long time to train new soldiers, I hope NATO can rapidly expand their training programs. Ukraine urgently need more soldiers. The UK has offered to launch an accelerated training program, with the potential to train up to 10,000 soldiers every 120 days. UK to offer major training programme for Ukrainian forces as Prime Minister hails their victorious determination - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
 

vikingatespam

Well-Known Member
If you find something interesting, let me know. There are definitely more then 5 brigades in action between the back and forth around Kharkov, the counter-attack attempts at Davydov Brod and Gulyaypole, the fighting around Avdeevka, Ugledar, Svetlodarsk, the heavy fighting around Dolgen'koe, and now the Gorskoe-Zolotoe pocket, not to mention the heavy back and forth in Severodonetsk. Ukraine attempted a partially successful counter-attack in that city.
I meant ~5 brigades in the Severodonetsk region; those that are taking the impact of the RU artillery concentration.


Lack of movement does not necessarily indicate quietude. The front near Nikolaev hasn't moved much since the initial attack but there has been much heavy shelling from both sides, and Ukraine has made several costly counter-attacks. Russia has also done things like hit barracks and staging areas. All of that causes losses.
The troop densities are low enough elsewhere that there hasnt been pitched, extended combat, at least from www.liveuamap or deepstatemap.

Ukraine had over 200k regular military pre-war, stood up 100+k Territorial Defense. Since then Ukraine has mobilized reservists and gotten plenty of foreign fighters. Even with 70k KIA and 280k WIA, with some returning to action after recovering, Ukraine would still have a standing force left, and not a small one. Remember Ukraine is continuing to mobilize reservists to this day, and we're seeing people in their 50s taken POW recently.

I also don't think the Russian claim is accurate. But 10k is far too low in my opinion. Given that the Ukrainian government is generally not trustworthy, if they say 100 per day, I would take that as the lowest possible average figure.
The actual fighting tooth part of a force is somewhere around 50% of the personnel of a unit (varies somewhat). This is why the 30K KIA figure for RU losses strikes me as unlikely (30K KIA, 120K WIA) as this implies 150K casualties from an initial 200K force, which in turn implies all combat elements of the initial force are dead/wounded, and then some.

For UKR to have suffered 70K/280K, there would be nothing left than smoking rubble. To give a comparison, I had to look through some data on WW2. From one of the US official histories, for the period of June 1944 to December 1944, in the ETO, the US army suffered a total of 104K KIA, or about 15K per month. This included the D-Day invasion and the Ardennes offensive, which are artificially high times of casualties compared to the rest of the campaign in 1944-45. So, in a period of 7 months, for a force of 2 million men, fighting in pitched head to head combat, is going to suffer less casualties than what is happening in UKR ? (70K in 4 months or 18K/month ) ?

Nope. Nuh-uh.

I am very sus on what any official UKR or RU source puts out, but I think the RU sources are even less reliable.

Every time I tell myself I should take a stab at estimating casualty rates using QJM or FM101-10, I get stumped by not having a good foundation of knowing what units are fighting.

What river line are you referring to? Krasniy Torets?
Bahkmutovka if I read the map correctly. Probably not as wide as the Siverski Donets.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
The actual fighting tooth part of a force is somewhere around 50% of the personnel of a unit (varies somewhat). This is why the 30K KIA figure for RU losses strikes me as unlikely (30K KIA, 120K WIA) as this implies 150K casualties from an initial 200K force, which in turn implies all combat elements of the initial force are dead/wounded, and then some.
There are some indications that the Russian KIA/WIA ratio is lower than what one typically use as "rule of thumb" -- could it be the same for UKR?

In any case, UKR KIA is north of 10,000: Ukraine conflict: 10,000 Ukrainian soldiers killed since start of war (brusselstimes.com)
 

vikingatespam

Well-Known Member
I posed the question in another forum, if the large numbers of RU T-series tanks being destroyed in a total-kill manner (and the resulting deaths of all crew members) would skew the K:W ratio. Add the Moskva to that.

4:1 is the rule of thumb from QJM. When dealing in large numbers, its difficult to deviate really far from that, unless medical services are really poor.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member

At least two people have been killed and more than 20 injured after a shopping centre in eastern Ukraine was struck by Russian missiles, officials have claimed.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy uploaded a video to his Facebook page showing a shopping mall on fire with thick plumes of smoke filling the sky in Kremenchuk, Poltava. He wrote on Monday: "The invaders hit the mall with rockets, where there were more than a thousand civilians... The number of victims cannot even be imagined."

Minutes later, Kyryl Tymoshenko, the deputy head of the presidential office, said in a Telegram post that at least two were dead and about 20 people were hurt, of whom nine were in serious condition. Mr Zelenskyy stressed that the target presented “no threat to the Russian army” and had “no strategic value.”


So does this show that the Russians are running out of precision weapons or that they're resorting to civilian attacks to try to lower Ukrainian morale? Either way, in my mind it can only further motivate reasonable foreign opinion against Putin and his war.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member

At least two people have been killed and more than 20 injured after a shopping centre in eastern Ukraine was struck by Russian missiles, officials have claimed.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy uploaded a video to his Facebook page showing a shopping mall on fire with thick plumes of smoke filling the sky in Kremenchuk, Poltava. He wrote on Monday: "The invaders hit the mall with rockets, where there were more than a thousand civilians... The number of victims cannot even be imagined."

Minutes later, Kyryl Tymoshenko, the deputy head of the presidential office, said in a Telegram post that at least two were dead and about 20 people were hurt, of whom nine were in serious condition. Mr Zelenskyy stressed that the target presented “no threat to the Russian army” and had “no strategic value.”


So does this show that the Russians are running out of precision weapons or that they're resorting to civilian attacks to try to lower Ukrainian morale? Either way, in my mind it can only further motivate reasonable foreign opinion against Putin and his war.
Please use a little critical thinking when considering these situations.

1) Remember the shopping center in Kiev that got hit? Ukrainian sources waxed lyrical about how the target had no military value. Until footage began to surface that showed Ukrainian artillery using the underground garage of the mall as a staging area.

2) Where was the strike? Where are the nearest Russian positions from which it could have plausibly been launched? What kind of munition would Russia have had to use? Does this allow us to draw conclusions about Russian munition stockpiles?
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Some more info on the NASAMS system:

- A fully installed NASAMS battery/ battalion consists of twelve launch ramps each with six AMRAAM missiles, four radars, four control centres, four electro-optical cameras and a control element.

- The radars are positioned around the area to be protected. Each radar is connected to a control centre which collects and analyses data from the radars.

- All the resulting information is shared between the control centres in real time via a wireless encrypted network.

- When a threat is detected, one of the many launch ramps will fire one or more missiles. The AMRAAM missiles have their own radars used to find and destroy the targets. These radars are independent of the rest of the system once launched.

- In 1999 in an exercise Canadian F-18s failed to find any NASAMS batteries, whereas NASAMS recorded 18 simulated kills of the F-18

- NASAMS has a rotating radar with low effect which guides the missile during the initial phase and until the missile’s own radar takes over. This combined with the use of passive sensor capacity and high mobility makes NASAMS a system which is mainly invisible to an opponent.

- Effective range 25 km (AMRAAM AIM-120-C5; 30+ km for AIM-120C7), altitude 16km

 
Please use a little critical thinking when considering these situations.

1) Remember the shopping center in Kiev that got hit? Ukrainian sources waxed lyrical about how the target had no military value. Until footage began to surface that showed Ukrainian artillery using the underground garage of the mall as a staging area.

2) Where was the strike? Where are the nearest Russian positions from which it could have plausibly been launched? What kind of munition would Russia have had to use? Does this allow us to draw conclusions about Russian munition stockpiles?
Hey Feanor,

I am unsure of the credibility of this account. But this reporter is saying that Russia used an anti-ship missile in this attack. What sense does that make?

 

wsb05

Member
Hello,
Is there any indication why
1- The Russian AirForce is unable to locate and destroy Ukraine air defense ?
2- The inaccuracy of Russian precision weapons.
3- The limited usage of precision weapons.
4- The absence of Active defense on armored vehicles.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Hey Feanor,

I am unsure of the credibility of this account. But this reporter is saying that Russia used an anti-ship missile in this attack. What sense does that make?

Nothing surprising about this. Russia has been using AShMs as LACMs for quite some time, first in training, then in Syria, and now extensively in this conflict. In some cases, like the Kh-35, we know a dedicated LACM capability was developed. In other cases, like Granit launches in training, it appears it's just an AShM being used against a ground target. We know Oniks and Kh-35 were used as LACM so far this war. If operational Kh-22s are available, they could also be used this way. Note, while Russian missile stockpiles turned out to be better then many observers predicted, they are certainly not infinite.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
there have been a number of reports that stocks of missiles with precision guidance used by Russia are running low
Explainer: Is Russia Running Low on Missiles? - The Moscow Times
Russia ‘running out’ of precision weapons (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)
This article provides some details of missiles used recently ,certainly Lavrovs comments comparing Europe to Hitlers Germany shows some desperation if not hypocrisy
Russo-Ukrainian War, Day 123: Russia continues massive missile strikes on Ukraine. Lavrov compares the EU and NATO to Hitler’s Germany." - Euromaidan Press
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Update.

Zaporozhye-Dnepropetrovsk.

A Russian column apparently ambushed near Pologi, Zaporozhye area. Note the machinegun malfunctions, and the gunner then gets wounded. I can't make out what they're shooting at, but in the moment we see the rifleman in the back of the Tigr, his AK has suppressor. This might be a recon unit.


LDNR Front.

Allegedly a Ukrainian SP howitzer hit near Novogrigorovka, Donetsk region. Personally I can't make out what got hit.


Ukrainian missile strikes against Shahtersk, Kirovsk, and Khartsyzk.


Ukrainian forces evacuating casualties after strikes near Peski.


Helmet cam footage from a Ukrainian fighter in Zolotoe. He is allegedly KIA and the camera captured. Note he's carrying an M-249, allegedly the same one LNR forces recently captured.


Chechen fighters attacking the Gorskoe-Zoltoe pocket, and posing with captured munitions and equipment.


Destroyed vehicles allegedly belonging to a Ukrainian volunteer unit.


Destroyed Ukrainian BMP-1 on the Bakhmut/Artemovsk-Severodonetsk road.


The entrance into Lisichansk from the Seversk side.


Ukrainian rope-raft crossing from Severodonetsk to Lisichansk. Footage is pre-fall of Severodonetsk.


Allegedly Zolotoe and Gorskoe are under Russia or rebel control. The reporter claims some Ukrainian forces broke out, some were taken POW and some were killed. Something tells me more got out then were lost.


3 more Ukrainian POWs from Gorskoe-Zolotoe.


Battle damage in Vrubovka, a small village recently taken by Russia or rebel forces. The village is basically gone.


Battle damage from a Russian strike in Konstantinovka. It was apparently done by Tu-22s.


Captured Panzerfausts.


Ukrainian munitions captured in Gorskoe.


Russian sources claim that Ukrainian troops looted Gorskoe, and then shelled it after withdrawing.


A strange video of a Ukrainian soldier who allegedly crossed to the Russian side, and met the Chechen fighters. He also allegedly had something to do with finding the munitions they captured.


Russian comms troops installing TV and radio transmission infrastructure in recently taken LNR areas.


In Mariupol' Russian MChS apparently pulled out a BTR-4 out of a river, full of Ukrainian military dead. Warning footage of corpses.


Misc.


Ukrainian triple Tochka launch, location and context unclear. We've seen a number of longer ranged strikes by Ukraine recently, including against targets in Kherson area and LDNR.


A UAV clearing land mines with an explosive. Location and context unclear.


Russian volunteers headed to the front line.


NATO/EU.


A column of French VABs spotted in Slovakia, possibly military aid heading to Ukraine.

 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I'm still about ~2.5 days behind, haven't been able to close the gap. Nothing I've seen indicates any radical changes in that timeframe though.
 

T.C.P

Well-Known Member
In Mariupol' Russian MChS apparently pulled out a BTR-4 out of a river, full of Ukrainian military dead. Warning footage of corpses.

There was a drone video a couple of days ago I think, that showed an APC driving off of a bridge, the video claimed it was a Ukrainian one. Although the video title claimed it was near Donbass. The video like most Rebel published video cut short immediately afterwards, so no way of seeing if the troops inside were able to escape (they most probably did, judging by the timing of the cut).

But if an APC does drive over a bridge headfirst into deep water, how quickly does it sink? How much time is there for the troops inside to pull the evacuation latches and escape?

Also I am no expert, but the drowned bodies I have seen from launch accidents were always much more bloated. Launch owners here have a shady practive of hiring divers to go in and cut the stomachs of the drowned passengers so that their bodies sink and dont float up, so that they have to pay out less in compensation.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
I know of a case in a neighbouring country [as told to me by someone who served as a vehicle commander at a later period] where a APC sank and some people could not get out in time. In the best of times exiting rapidly from a APC/IFV can be an issue; imagine doing it when it has sunk or is half submerged; when the occupants are in shock.
 

Larso66

Member
Some vehicles are made to swim (the M113) but if something that heavy normally went in nose first, with hatches open, surely it sinks like a stone.
 
Top