OT: Putin's War in Ukraine

[Raellus]

Hasta La Vista, Baby!

Ukrainian forces have terminated their first Russian BMPT. Hopefully the other "Terminators" meet the same fate very soon.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/hasta-la-vista-baby-ukraine-kills-its-first-russian-terminator-combat-vehicle

It looks like the "Terminator" in question had been abandoned prior to the artillery strikes, as it makes no effort to evade or reposition after the first near miss.

If that is indeed the case, it highlights another major shortcoming of the Russian ground forces that's become very apparent since the invasion kicked off almost a year ago- the failure to recover disabled AFVs. Do the Russians simply lack sufficient numbers of ARVs with which to do so, or is this failure more a function of poor tactics and battlefield command and control I tend to think it's more the latter, as like vehicles (i.e. another BMPT or AFV with sufficient horsepower) could conceivably taken its disabled sister under tow and drag it out of harms way.

Also, the footage could indicate that the BMPT was operating alone. This is a tactical blunder that we've seen repeated over and over by the Russian ground forces in Ukraine.

Bringing this back around to T2k, does the BMPT make an appearance in your T2kU (It does in mine.)

-

[Heffe]

Also, the footage could indicate that the BMPT was operating alone. This is a tactical blunder that we've seen repeated over and over by the Russian ground forces in Ukraine.
-

I have to admit that Russia's absolute bonkers lack of viable armor doctrine has been one of the more shocking revelations of the war. It's been over a year now, and we're still continuing to see armor, completely unsupported by infantry, moving forward to assault entrenched positions. Not only are we still seeing this kind of activity on the Russian side, but it doesn't seem to be improving at all.

[Vespers War]

Ukrainian forces have terminated their first Russian BMPT. Hopefully the other "Terminators" meet the same fate very soon.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/hasta-la-vista-baby-ukraine-kills-its-first-russian-terminator-combat-vehicle

It looks like the "Terminator" in question had been abandoned prior to the artillery strikes, as it makes no effort to evade or reposition after the first near miss.

If that is indeed the case, it highlights another major shortcoming of the Russian ground forces that's become very apparent since the invasion kicked off almost a year ago- the failure to recover disabled AFVs. Do the Russians simply lack sufficient numbers of ARVs with which to do so, or is this failure more a function of poor tactics and battlefield command and control I tend to think it's more the latter, as like vehicles (i.e. another BMPT or AFV with sufficient horsepower) could conceivably taken its disabled sister under tow and drag it out of harms way.

Also, the footage could indicate that the BMPT was operating alone. This is a tactical blunder that we've seen repeated over and over by the Russian ground forces in Ukraine.

Bringing this back around to T2k, does the BMPT make an appearance in your T2kU (It does in mine.)

-

It was reported as disabled before the indirect fire strikes. This might have been a strike to eliminate it before it could be dragged away for repairs. It was destroyed by the 140th Marine Reconnaissance Battalion, a relatively new unit that was stood up in 2019. The fighting was geolocated to a forest between Kreminna and Bilohorivka, Luhasnk Oblast.

A little further south, Russia lost 31 vehicles in Vuhledar, Donetsk Oblast, including 13 tanks (mostly T-72B3, at least one T-80BVM) and 12 BMPs.

Getting back to the game, I haven't used the Terminator. It's too new for the timelines I've run, with a single company of 9 vehicles formed last year. If I was going to use the BMPT concept, I'd probably go back to the late 1980s BMPT designs. Both were built on modified T-72B hulls in 1987.

Object 781 sb.7 used two independently rotating turrets, each with a 2A42 30mm autocannon and a coaxial PKT. Each turret could also have either a 4-pack of smoke grenades or a twin ATGM launcher (I've seen different sources claim it as either a Konkurs or Ataka launcher). There were also a pair of 30mm grenade launchers or a pair of PKTs in the front fenders, along with a pair of NSV machine guns to cover the flanks and rear from a low-profile "mini-turret" behind the main turrets. It carried 550 rounds for each autocannon, 2000 rounds for each machine gun, and 300 grenades for each launcher (inf installed). Crew was 7 - a driver and two gunners at the front of the hull, the commander and gunner in the middle, and two NSV gunners at the rear.

Object 781 sb.8 had a more conventional layout with a turret containing a 2A70 100mm gun from the BMP-3 and a coaxial 2A42 30mm gun with 50 and 500 rounds respectively, along with up to 4 Bastion gun-fired anti-tank missiles. It also had a pair of hull-mounted PKTs that could fire to the side or front, and the same fender-mounted automatic grenade launcher and PKT module as Object 781. It had 1,000 rounds for each PKT and 300 for each grenade launcher, and likewise had a crew of 7.

Allegedly there was also an Object 781 sb.9 with a 57mm gun, but I haven't found any solid information on that. The Soviet Union was more impressed with Object 781 sb.7 and planned to put it into production, and then the collapse happened.

[Vespers War]

According to a European acquaintance of mine, one of the rumors/theories/speculations going around Russian social media of people with an interest in military matters is that Ukraine is using RAAM (Remote Anti-Armor Mine) shells to re-fill minefields after Russian units clear them, and that is the reason for some of the recent videos of multiple vehicles getting taken out by mines. The theory is that Ukraine's laying a minefield, waiting for scout units to clear a path (and presumably observing where the path is from a drone), then using RAAM to re-deploy anti-tank mines into the cleared path before the main body of a formation can pass through. Each 155mm RAAM shell deploys 9 anti-tank mines with either a 4 hour or 48 hour self-destruct designed into them.

[Raellus]

According to a European acquaintance of mine, one of the rumors/theories/speculations going around Russian social media of people with an interest in military matters is that Ukraine is using RAAM (Remote Anti-Armor Mine) shells to re-fill minefields after Russian units clear them, and that is the reason for some of the recent videos of multiple vehicles getting taken out by mines. The theory is that Ukraine's laying a minefield, waiting for scout units to clear a path (and presumably observing where the path is from a drone), then using RAAM to re-deploy anti-tank mines into the cleared path before the main body of a formation can pass through. Each 155mm RAAM shell deploys 9 anti-tank mines with either a 4 hour or 48 hour self-destruct designed into them.

I seem to remember reading about a similar tactic, albeit drone-free, in Red Storm Rising or similar late Cold War military fiction.

On Friday, Reuters reported that Russia has resorted to the "tactic" of sending conscripts across minefields in the vicinity of Vuhledar to "clear" them in advance of the main effort. That might just be Ukrainian propaganda fed to the Western media, but I certainly wouldn't put it past the Russians at this point.

-

[Heffe]

According to a European acquaintance of mine, one of the rumors/theories/speculations going around Russian social media of people with an interest in military matters is that Ukraine is using RAAM (Remote Anti-Armor Mine) shells to re-fill minefields after Russian units clear them, and that is the reason for some of the recent videos of multiple vehicles getting taken out by mines. The theory is that Ukraine's laying a minefield, waiting for scout units to clear a path (and presumably observing where the path is from a drone), then using RAAM to re-deploy anti-tank mines into the cleared path before the main body of a formation can pass through. Each 155mm RAAM shell deploys 9 anti-tank mines with either a 4 hour or 48 hour self-destruct designed into them.

Seems we've had confirmation of the US M70 mines being used, which is indeed RAAM-deployed. I remember reading about FASCAM in the Big Yellow Book so many years ago and wondering about the system and its uses - it's interesting to actually see it being deployed for its intended purpose like this. It sounds as though we've provided Ukraine something like 10200 RAAM rounds since the start of the war.

[Vespers War]

Seems we've had confirmation of the US M70 mines being used, which is indeed RAAM-deployed. I remember reading about FASCAM in the Big Yellow Book so many years ago and wondering about the system and its uses - it's interesting to actually see it being deployed for its intended purpose like this. It sounds as though we've provided Ukraine something like 10200 RAAM rounds since the start of the war.

RAAM is one component of FASCAM. On the artillery side there's also ADAM (Area Denial Artillery Munition), which is like RAAM but with 36 anti-personnel mines instead of the 9 anti-armor mines. They also have either a 48 hour (M67) or 4 hour (M72) self-destruct mechanism, along with a battery that will discharge in 14 days so that even if the self-destruct fails, the detonator will be inactive after 2 weeks.

GEMSS and Volcano were/are the ground vehicle mine dispensing systems for FASCAM, while GATOR and Volcano were/are the aerial vehicle mine dispensers. GATOR was used in the Gulf War to inhibit Iraqi mobility, but had a rather horrendous dud rate, possibly because it was hotter than their designed limits. Its mines could be set (by a switch on the dispenser before take-off) to self-destruct in 4 hours, 15 hours, or 15 days, and the battery would be discharged in 40 days.

[ToughOmbres]

I seem to remember reading about a similar tactic, albeit drone-free, in Red Storm Rising or similar late Cold War military fiction.

On Friday, Reuters reported that Russia has resorted to the "tactic" of sending conscripts across minefields in the vicinity of Vuhledar to "clear" them in advance of the main effort. That might just be Ukrainian propaganda fed to the Western media, but I certainly wouldn't put it past the Russians at this point.

-

Nor would I-could be disinformation but sounds very reminiscent of the NKVD penal units sent forward through minefields. Wouldn't surprise me a bit.

[kato13]

For what rainy day is Russia saving its air force

• Spring boarding an offensive
• Exploiting a breakthrough
• Stopping a UKR offensive (perhaps towards Mariupol)
• Punishing civilian targets if the war starts to sour
• Last ditch effort to protect Crimea
• Some form of complicated logistical interdiction (intercepting new NATO Equipment)

I was expecting a bit more action from the Russian air force for the probing attacks and small scale advances that have been made in the last few weeks. But I have not heard of any tick up. When do you think they will make a major appearance

[kcdusk]

I don't think the airforce will make an appearance. Its felt to me like loosing a helicopter or aircraft always resulted in more promotional advantage for Ukraine, that its not worth the risk to Russia to fly them. Too embarrassing to loose a single unit.

Or, aircraft require so much more maintenance that they are not fit to fly.

So i don't think its a case of saving the air force for a rainy day. Its either embarrassment or not in a fit state.

[Raellus]

It is somewhat surprising that the Russians haven't made greater use of their air force during this war. In the lead up to the war, much was made of Russia's superiority in air power vis-a-vis the Ukranians.

That said, I have seen references to an uptick in Russian tactical air sorties during the recent fighting for Bakhmut. In fact, in a PR stunt, the Wagner PMC head challenged President Zelensky to an air duel after allegedly flying a SU-24 over the embattled city. That same SU-24 was damaged a day or two later by a MANPAD in the AO, but the aircraft made it to base safely.

Re helicopters, I recently read that the Russians have changed their tactics after losing up to a third of their KA-52 fleet so far. They are now pairing KA-52s with Mi-28s because their respective defensive countermeasures complement each other. I can't remember which is which, but one is stronger against radar-guided SAMs and the other is better against heat-seeking missiles.

I think KC makes a good point re appearances. In the cost benefit analysis, the Russians have probably concluded that benefits of using their air power do not outweigh the combat losses plus the PR embarrassment of same.

-

[kato13]

So strange they don't see losing 1000 men a day as not worth the PR.

I guess keeping that Ace always in the hole makes the UKR forces reticent to push when they have a slight advantage. Personally I am not sure Putin could survive the loss of Crimea, if that is threatened that is where I expect to see all cards go onto the table.

[Raellus]

So strange they don't see losing 1000 men a day as not worth the PR.

I agree, but for the Russians, life is cheap. Literally. A SU-34, on the other hand...

-

[Raellus]

In the early days of the war, I saw a lot of stories about how the Switchblade loitering munition was going to make a big impact in the hands of the Ukrainian army. Aside from a couple of videos showing Switchblades in action (including one where it attacked a civilian sedan), I've not seen/heard any references to their use or effectiveness (or lack thereof).

On the other hand, the Ukraine Weapons Tracker Twitter feed regularly shares video clips of Russian Lancet loitering munitions in action. Although they appear pretty accurate, they don't seem to do much damage to hard targets- in many cases the target can be repaired and returned to action relatively quickly. I get the impression that the Lancet's warhead is not very powerful.

Is this evidence of the rare example of a Russian system (Lancet) that is more effective than a comparable NATO one (Switchblade), or is there another explanation

-

[Vespers War]

In the early days of the war, I saw a lot of stories about how the Switchblade loitering munition was going to make a big impact in the hands of the Ukrainian army. Aside from a couple of videos showing Switchblades in action (including one where it attacked a civilian sedan), I've not seen/heard any references to their use or effectiveness (or lack thereof).

On the other hand, the Ukraine Weapons Tracker Twitter feed regularly shares video clips of Russian Lancet loitering munitions in action. Although they appear pretty accurate, they don't seem to do much damage to hard targets- in many cases the target can be repaired and returned to action relatively quickly. I get the impression that the Lancet's warhead is not very powerful.

Is this evidence of the rare example of a Russian system (Lancet) that is more effective than a comparable NATO one (Switchblade), or is there another explanation

-

I think it's mostly that Switchblade 300 isn't all that visually impressive. There have been a few videos of their use taking out bunkers and tank crews, but because of how that version functions, they often look like failures. The 300 uses a directional fragmentation warhead roughly equivalent to a 40mm grenade that detonates ahead of the target and kills infantry or soft-skin vehicles. Particularly if the target's under cover, it looks like the system blows up short and nothing happened. The 600 isn't in full production, but would likely generate more video attention because it uses a warhead based on Javelin's.

As far as Lancet goes, the smaller Lancet-1 is a 5 kilogram drone with a 1 kilogram warhead, while Lancet-3 is 12 kilograms with a 3 kilogram warhead. Switchblade 300 is smaller (2.7 kilograms including its carrying case and launcher), while Switchblade 600 is much larger (54.5 kilograms). The debris from a destroyed Lancet included parts from Samsung, Semtech, Analog Devices, Infineon, NXP Semiconductor, and Mtech, all COTS bits, so the Russian electronics industry is as nonexistent as ever.