OT: Putin's War in Ukraine

[Vespers War]

Could be a lot of reasons, but the one I had read that seemed most convincing was that these bases were hit by Ukraine's new domestic rocket drone, which was only recently unveiled. This one:

https://defence-blog.com/ukraine-discloses-details-of-secret-palyanytsya-missile/

If true, it could be that Ukraine simply didn't have domestic weapons capable, until recently, of hitting the facilities. Or alternatively they didn't feel that they had a solid corridor through Russia's AA net to make it work until now.

The UJ-25 Skyline would also have the range and is jet-powered, but even that was first shown to the public only a year ago and it allegedly has a much smaller warhead than Palianytsia (~10 kg versus ~50 kg). Regardless of type, it would take a while to build up the inventory for the 100+ drone salvo allegedly used for the first depot strike. Strizh would also have the range, but not the numbers, to strike the depot 300 miles from the Ukrainian border.

[Raellus]

Dear Leader to Dear Leader

Apparently, North Korea is sending troops to Ukraine to support Russian combat ops.

https://www.twz.com/news-features/north-korea-wading-deeper-into-russias-war-against-ukraine

So, according to Putin, NATO sending ground forces- even just as rear echelon support troops- to Ukraine to help it fight Russia is a "red line" that will trigger a nuclear response, but Russia can field DPRK troops in combat-support roles. As yet, neither Russia nor North Korea is bothering to pretend that these troops are independent volunteers or mercs. I wouldn't be at all surprised if North Korea starts sending ground combat troops to Ukraine.

Recent reports indicate that a few DPRK troops have already been KIA by UAF artillery/air strikes.

Russia already has a 10-to-1 advantage in troop strength v. Ukraine. DPRK support troops will allow Russia to employ even more cannon fodder on the front lines...

How does Ukraine stand a chance, long-term, when it is forced to fight with one hand tied behind its back and Russia can do whatever the hell it wants Hopefully, this move by Pyongyang prompts Seoul to fast-track weapon transfers- especially artillery ammo and AFVs- to Ukraine.

Seriously, NATO needs to step up or Europe is going to end up with some very nasty neighbors.

-

[kato13]

Again trying to pull game info from this war, this pdf gives a good primer on what is necessary to manufacture artillery shells in a limited resource environment.

https://static.opensourcecentre.org/assets/osc_ore_to_ordnance.pdf

Starting at page 37 I learned a bit about what would go into the Russians making new artillery shells and what manufacturing plants might be significant.

[castlebravo92]

Read an interesting thing yesterday. Apparently in all the US and all of Europe outside of the Ukraine and Russia, there is a SINGLE installation still making TNT that the ENTIRE West, including the US, is dependent on for making artillery shells, and that installation is in Poland.

[kato13]

Read an interesting thing yesterday. Apparently in all the US and all of Europe outside of the Ukraine and Russia, there is a SINGLE installation still making TNT that the ENTIRE West, including the US, is dependent on for making artillery shells, and that installation is in Poland.

Does that include South Korea (As they are "Western" in everything but direction). I really hope RoK starts evening the playing field given the DPRK support of Russia.

[Raellus]

First, the bad news...

Bad News:

Recent reports claim that North Korea is sending combat troops to Ukraine. Some have already appeared on the front line in the Kursk bulge. On the plus side, there are already unconfirmed reports that some of the North Korean troops have already deserted. Considering how far they are from home, where these deserters are going off to is a big question. A better option would probably be defection (by surrendering to Ukrainian forces).

Good News:

Australia is sending 49 surplus M1A1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine. Forbes reports that these vehicles will go to the 47th Mechanized Brigade, Ukraine's current M1 operator. About half of the first batch of Abrams have been destroyed or damaged/pulled from the fighting. Ukrainian Abrams are modified with Soviet-era reactive armor and anti-drone cages.

-

[Drgonzo2011]

Read an interesting thing yesterday. Apparently in all the US and all of Europe outside of the Ukraine and Russia, there is a SINGLE installation still making TNT that the ENTIRE West, including the US, is dependent on for making artillery shells, and that installation is in Poland.

Source I thought US military explosives were made at Holston.

[castlebravo92]

Source I thought US military explosives were made at Holston.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2024/02/06/us-army-hunts-for-explosives-to-meet-increased-munitions-output-goals/

Holsten manufactures IMX-104 but not TNT.

From the article:

"Currently there is no TNT production in the U.S. and the supplies come from allies such as Australia and India.

Poland is a major supplier, but with every country ramping up production to support Ukraine and meet their own demands, Bush noted late last year, the U.S. will need to onshore TNT production."

[Vespers War]

Bad News:

Recent reports claim that North Korea is sending combat troops to Ukraine. Some have already appeared on the front line in the Kursk bulge. On the plus side, there are already unconfirmed reports that some of the North Korean troops have already deserted. Considering how far they are from home, where these deserters are going off to is a big question. A better option would probably be defection (by surrendering to Ukrainian forces).

Good News:

Australia is sending 49 surplus M1A1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine. Forbes reports that these vehicles will go to the 47th Mechanized Brigade, Ukraine's current M1 operator. About half of the first batch of Abrams have been destroyed or damaged/pulled from the fighting. Ukrainian Abrams are modified with Soviet-era reactive armor and anti-drone cages.

-

While not a modification per se, the Ukrainian Abrams also have American reactive armor. What I've seen pictures of is Kontakt-1* on the glacis and M19 ARAT on the hull sides, with no ERA on the turret and no second layer of ARAT (M32) on the hull sides. Based on what I've seen written about them, using Paul's pages they'd be M1A1 SA, with an extra 80 AV vs Heat on the HF and 100 AV vs Heat on the HS**, using the book rules for ERA for everything other than the additional armor value. Normally I'd just consider a cage to add Sp to the relevant armor, but the Abrams already has that for TS, so all it would do is add Sp to TR.


*This could be Nizh instead of Kontakt. Ukraine has started loading Kontakt containers with Nizh modules because the Nizh containers were hard to reload. If it's Nizh, it only adds around 75 AV vs Heat, but also adds 25 AV vs kinetic penetrators, which Kontakt-1 doesn't help against at all.

**A Ukrainian write-up finally gave me the first estimate I've seen of ARAT's effectiveness, which was that M19 adds 500-550mm of RHA-equivalent protection against HEAT. I still don't have any estimates for M32, and I don't know how good that estimate for the M19 is, but it sounds plausible and is better than not having an estimate at all.

[pmulcahy11b]

Museum Tanks

Here's Simon Whistler's take on whether the Russians are pulling tanks out of museums.

https://www.youtube.com/watchv=y4yqUwxddTY

[Raellus]

For the past couple of weeks, news hasn't been good for Ukraine and it keeps getting worse. I think Russia's use of an experimental IRBM armed with conventional warheads is interesting. Apparently, Moscow warned the US gov't beforehand. This is a dangerous precedent and will require a mutual trust that hasn't been earned and I don't think either side is particularly eager to give.

-

[HaplessOperator]

"But Chuddha, what if-" "It won't."

For the past couple of weeks, news hasn't been good for Ukraine and it keeps getting worse. I think Russia's use of an experimental IRBM armed with conventional warheads is interesting. Apparently, Moscow warned the US gov't beforehand. This is a dangerous precedent and will require a mutual trust that hasn't been earned and I don't think either side is particularly eager to give.

-

Probably unearned, but the trajectory of a ballistic shot becomes obvious fairly immediately on launch, and the launches themselves are trackable by FIRMS and more advanced national reconnaissance assets; a ballistic threat to the United States isn't exactly something that would go unnoticed,

Publicly, we're no longer launch on warning, with the stated doctrine being to launch following a confirmed detonation (again, something that would be detected immediately), but one imagines that this doctrine would go out the window if multiple launches were detected and the course tracks indicated deployments against strategic assets, which in and of itself is a straightforward mathematical exercise in firing solutions.

One assumes this is why we maintain launch on warning readiness and capability despite not officially maintaining it as policy. Sidelong observations being a full nuclear deployment would be rather difficult to miss, given the nature of how it must be conducted to have even a remote hope of knocking out enough assets to make such a gambit "worth it," and that a single delivery vehicle being launched would be madness, as it would precipitate a full strategic escalation without inflicting any serious damage to the United States; a half measure would be utter suicide, and a functional deployment would be the most obvious event imaginable.

Though this is entirely conjecture, it's also likely we knew about the launch prep even before they told us; our defense intelligence apparatus has flexed several times in the past two decades with detailed information about Russian test launches immediately prior to or immediately after the Russians have issued a bare public acknowledgement.

On another front, one wonders exactly what state their nuclear arsenal is in. Their entire defense budget (including nuclear readiness) amounts to roughly about what we spend on nuclear maintenance alone.

[LoneCollector1987]

According to the latest news it seems that the war will end with the current borders, Ukraine not in NATO.
And that seems to be the most favourable ending.

I even found opinions, that there may be a demand that NATO goes back to the borders of 1991 or so and that Poland, the Baltics, Hungary, etc must leave NATO.

What do you think

[kato13]

As it appears to be on a short timeline, I think it is best to wait to see what happens rather than speculate.

[Raellus]

According to the latest news it seems that the war will end with the current borders, Ukraine not in NATO.
And that seems to be the most favourable ending.

Favorable I think that depends on perspective. "Most acceptable to all parties", perhaps.

I even found opinions, that there may be a demand that NATO goes back to the borders of 1991 or so and that Poland, the Baltics, Hungary, etc must leave NATO.

What do you think

I think that would be a massive unearned strategic victory for Russia. Trump might agree to those conditions, but NATO and the effected member countries most certainly would not and, AFAIK, the USA doesn't have unilateral fiat authority to affect this downsizing.

-