Continuation The Russian invasion of Ukraine part 6

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm pretty sure I was seeing reports of Russia blocking grain shipments at least a couple days before this strike.

They were talking about that, yes

Just as they were planning the attacks on Kyiv and then hung a handy excuse on it.

Because a warship under way is a civilian target unlike a vital military infrastructure like a kindergarten.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by jimbob

https://twitter.com/christogrozev/st...MmagJrSXEsAxCA

Worth a read

ETA

https://twitter.com/christogrozev/st...MmagJrSXEsAxCA

Sorta a classic strategy. The more corrupt side tries to make the people believe that everyone's corrupt, even if their claims are over the top nonsense. The more people buy it, the easier it is for wild corruption to flourish.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Yeah, but neither of the scenarios under discussion is anywhere close to that line.

Really?

Quote:

I think it's abundantly clear at this point that Russia isn't really running much of a war machine at all.

But that is irrelevant when examining the impact they can have on Ukraine's war machine.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Really?

Yes, really.

Quote:

But that is irrelevant when examining the impact they can have on Ukraine's war machine.

You brought it up. The reality is that Ukraine is backed by a very effective and generous war machine, most of which is far beyond Russia's reach.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Aridas

Sorta a classic strategy. The more corrupt side tries to make the people believe that everyone's corrupt, even if their claims are over the top nonsense. The more people buy it, the easier it is for wild corruption to flourish.

I'm beginning to think there's a Chinese military analyst telling the Central Committee right now that western stealth technology is a hoax, because if it were real they'd have been able to replicate it already.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Yes, really.


You brought it up. The reality is that Ukraine is backed by a very effective and generous war machine, most of which is far beyond Russia's reach.

But the civilian strikes are impacting on it. The power cuts will be having an effect and Ukraine is having to deploy air defences to protect against the drones.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Really?




But that is irrelevant when examining the impact they can have on Ukraine's war machine.

Compare the impact of the Luftwaffe bombing campaign against Britain, or the RAF/USAAF bombing campaign against Germany. And the weekly tonnage dropped on both cities and industry, and that they are generally regarded as costing the allies more than Germany.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

But the civilian strikes are impacting on it. The power cuts will be having an effect and Ukraine is having to deploy air defences to protect against the drones.

It's not impacting it enough to change the tide of battle in Russia's favor. Not even remotely.

And Ukraine was having to deploy air defenses anyway. And Ukraine is getting flooded with air defenses, courtesy of a military-industrial complex Russia cannot touch. Meanwhile, Ukraine doesn't have a symmetrical problem with not being able to touch the Russian military-industrial complex, since the Russians have been helpfully running it into the ground themselves, for decades now.

I do see it as a spectrum, but these two points are very far apart, not blurring together.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

But the civilian strikes are impacting on it. The power cuts will be having an effect and Ukraine is having to deploy air defences to protect against the drones.

Although I don't have any numbers I think the direct impact on the Ukranian military is low if not completely negligible.

They are by all accounts utilizing precision weapons poorly, likely because they cannot use them effectively against Ukranian military units.

The Russians are likely trying to stall the Ukranian offensive by throwing as much cannonfodder into the meat grinder as they can while using these terror bombings to force the Ukranians to negotiate.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

But the civilian strikes are impacting on it. The power cuts will be having an effect and Ukraine is having to deploy air defences to protect against the drones.

If this is still talking about the potential effectiveness of Russia targeting Ukraine's civilian infrastructure, especially the power stations, I think I'll poke back to what I said before. It certainly is a strategy and it certainly has an effect. That doesn't make it either a good or effective strategy if the goal is to win militarily. Just like inaccurately shelling empty fields thousands of times and using limited stocks of expensive high precision missiles to target apartment buildings far, far from the battlefield is a certainly a strategy, just one that is actually focused on attacking morale. It's a wildly inefficient use of limited resource capability, though, as all the Russian genocidal promises that align rather well with their terrorism create a pretty direct backlash to such attempts to reduce morale and the backlash likely actually strengthens the Ukrainian military in a number of ways.

[Doubt]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Although I don't have any numbers I think the direct impact on the Ukranian military is low if not completely negligible.

They are by all accounts utilizing precision weapons poorly, likely because they cannot use them effectively against Ukranian military units.

The Russians are likely trying to stall the Ukranian offensive by throwing as much cannonfodder into the meat grinder as they can while using these terror bombings to force the Ukranians to negotiate.

The Russians are counting on winter to help them and make Ukraine suffer. That is a strategic use of those crappy weapons. Not likely to work as well enough to change anything.

[a_unique_person]

Video of attack. The Russians could see them coming for the second wave of attacks

https://youtu.be/-n7mnRiTyes

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Video of attack. The Russians could see them coming for the second wave of attacks

https://youtu.be/-n7mnRiTyes

There is no excuse for the Russians allowing this to happen. There was hardly any fire coming down on those drones. They should have been ripped to shreds.

[theprestige]

The US recently* conducted a war game where a rogue general pushed home the point that surprise torpedo boats could destroy an S-tier navy. It seems that Russia has steadfastly ignored this widely available and publicly reported finding.

[gypsyjackson]

Originally Posted by theprestige

The US recently* conducted a war game where a rogue general pushed home the point that surprise torpedo boats could destroy an S-tier navy. It seems that Russia has steadfastly ignored this widely available and publicly reported finding.

That’s what I was wondering. I don’t think, say, Queen Elizabeth could defend itself against an attack of this nature any better. Can Phalanx be used against an at sea level threat? Does the US have anti-sea drone systems?

[The Don]

Another long (1hr+) and IMO informative video from Perun.

This one assesses Europe's military capability vs. Russia's

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

tl;dr version

Russia isn't as strong as the entire Warsaw Pact and the European components of NATO are more capable than they were.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by gypsyjackson

That’s what I was wondering. I don’t think, say, Queen Elizabeth could defend itself against an attack of this nature any better. Can Phalanx be used against an at sea level threat? Does the US have anti-sea drone systems?

Sea drones are just another kind of small fast boat, perhaps more daringly used as they're uncrewed, but there have been several examples of suicidally audacious raids on ships in harbour long before this technology made it safer for the attackers. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grand_Harbour

The threat to capital ships in harbour from a raid by small torpedo boats has been a serious consideration for at least a century and a half and harbour raids generally go way back into history. It's hard to imagine there aren't multiple levels of defence against that type of attack. So, is this just another case of Russian incompetence; "what harbour defence doing"?

[Steve]

Originally Posted by The Don

Another long (1hr+) and IMO informative video from Perun.

This one assesses Europe's military capability vs. Russia's

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

tl;dr version

Russia isn't as strong as the entire Warsaw Pact and the European components of NATO are more capable than they were.

This war has been a dream come true for NATO intelligence gathering. There is no other scenario that could possibly have provided them with so much first hand info on actual Russian military capabilities (or lack thereof). NATO is even able to evaluate the applied use of this information by providing data to Ukraine and observing the results.

[gypsyjackson]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Sea drones are just another kind of small fast boat, perhaps more daringly used as they're uncrewed, but there have been several examples of suicidally audacious raids on ships in harbour long before this technology made it safer for the attackers. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grand_Harbour

Yes, and on the Allied side the attempts against the Tirpitz etc, while in other military bad decision/boats threads the Kaiten are legendary.

Quote:

The threat to capital ships in harbour from a raid by small torpedo boats has been a serious consideration for at least a century and a half and harbour raids generally go way back into history. It's hard to imagine there aren't multiple levels of defence against that type of attack. So, is this just another case of Russian incompetence; "what harbour defence doing"?

This is more what I was getting at - is this unusual? I actually looked up the QE defences, and it has 3 Phalanx for airborne threats, but for sea level threats it has GPMGs and sub-machine guns which doesn’t sound very different from what the Russians were reported to be using (plus helicopters).

And you think back to USS Cole, which was a similar-ish type of attack, and there clearly weren’t the right levels of defence there. I know it’s different in times of war from peace time, and the Russian navy should have been more alert, but would that just have meant more sailors with more sub-machine guns scanning the water?

[jimbob]

Well the Westland Wildcat has now carried 20 Martlet missils a few weeks ago

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-an...ter-key-trials

[JoeMorgue]

In what (I believe) to be the first case of this conflict "spilling out" a house in Moldova near the Ukrainian border was damaged by (reports say) debris from a Russian missile intercepted by Ukrainian forces.

The incident is believe to be an accident, but has still drawn condemnation from the Moldovan government.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/31/w...ebris-war.html

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

In what (I believe) to be the first case of this conflict "spilling out" a house in Moldova near the Ukrainian border was damaged by (reports say) debris from a Russian missile intercepted by Ukrainian forces.

The incident is believe to be an accident, but has still drawn condemnation from the Moldovan government.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/31/w...ebris-war.html

Russia has used Moldovan airspace before for its attacks.

ETA But I don't think any had previously landed in Moldova

[The Don]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Russia has used Moldovan airspace before for its attacks.

ETA But I don't think any had previously landed in Moldova

Where are they being launched from and/or what flightpath would they have that would take them over Moldova ?

Are they being launched from Transnistria ?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by gypsyjackson

That’s what I was wondering. I don’t think, say, Queen Elizabeth could defend itself against an attack of this nature any better.

I think the QE could defend itself better simply by virtue of having a fully-functional suite of countermeasures, manned by an alert and attentive crew of properly-trained sailors.

And also by being on a proper war-time posture in a theater of war, where its defenses would include similarly equipped and alert screening vessels, and complements of rotary winged aircraft for early warning and interdiction.

Quote:

Can Phalanx be used against an at sea level threat? Does the US have anti-sea drone systems?

Most western navies have been hard at work improving their point defense systems to more effectively detect and engage surface or surface-skimming targets. SeaRAM, ESSM, and RIM-174 all have the capability. And I'm pretty sure modern deck guns on modern frigates and destroyers can also be used for this purpose. Against slower targets like speedboats, anyway. And assuming they're functional, crewed and informed by a functional and crewed threat detection system.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Sea drones are just another kind of small fast boat, perhaps more daringly used as they're uncrewed, but there have been several examples of suicidally audacious raids on ships in harbour long before this technology made it safer for the attackers. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grand_Harbour

The threat to capital ships in harbour from a raid by small torpedo boats has been a serious consideration for at least a century and a half and harbour raids generally go way back into history. It's hard to imagine there aren't multiple levels of defence against that type of attack. So, is this just another case of Russian incompetence; "what harbour defence doing"?

A couple examples from the 1970s are Operation Trident and Operation Python. Indian fast missile boats raid Pakistan, damaging ships and shore facilities. In both cases, the Pakistanis were caught by surprise and were unable to inflict any casualties on the Indian flotillas. Moral of the story: Black Sea Fleet circa 2022 = Pakistani Navy circa 1972.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by gypsyjackson

This is more what I was getting at - is this unusual? I actually looked up the QE defences, and it has 3 Phalanx for airborne threats, but for sea level threats it has GPMGs and sub-machine guns which doesn’t sound very different from what the Russians were reported to be using (plus helicopters).

Modern carrier doctrine considers the carrier group as a unit. Most of the carrier's defenses are embodied not in the hull of the carrier itself, but in its air wings and its escort ships. And, in port, the port's own defenses.

Quote:

And you think back to USS Cole, which was a similar-ish type of attack, and there clearly weren’t the right levels of defence there. I know it’s different in times of war from peace time, and the Russian navy should have been more alert, but would that just have meant more sailors with more sub-machine guns scanning the water?

If such an attack had been expected by the Cole, then yes, more lookouts manning more guns would have been part of the countermeasures.

It's also likely that if such an attack had been expected, the Cole would have chosen a less-convenient anchorage, further from shore, where threats could be seen approaching from further away.

It's also likely that if the Cole were at war, in a theater of war, it would have taken significant additional defensive measures, such as staying out of that particular port, conducting aerial patrols for early warning and interdiction, and coordinating with additional warships and shore defenses for a more complete and effective defensive screen.

Also, modern point defense systems are (or should be) much better at detecting and engaging speedboats, than anything the Cole had available. I'm sure even Phalanx could do it - as long as it's turned on and the crew is competent.

It's kind of insulting to just assume the QE must be on the same level of readiness and competence as a Russian warship of the modern era. Have the last six months taught you nothing?

---

ETA: And really, the best defense against this attack would have been for the warships of the Black Sea Fleet to be patrolling up and down the Ukrainian coastline, ready to pounce on any damn speedboat that dared to sortie, and shelling the crap out of whatever coastal facility or plywood shack the the sortie launched from. Torpedo boats are not magic. Modern warships, competently operated, should not be such easy targets for them.

[Oystein]

Fighting has intensified on the periphery of Donets city

The YT channel "Reporting from Ukraine" is telling the story in great detail, with a concerned tone: "29 Oct: Dangerous. Ukrainian Primary DEFENSE BREACHED"

Short version:
The line of contact just to the West and North of Donetsk city and its airport as been there for years, and UA has dug in there, in four positions, very heavily. Russia has tried to soften those defenses for months with imperceptible success, until UA decided to regroup some of their artillery from there to theKherson theater - a move that weakened the Donetsk defense a tad too much, and the Russians exploited that, by getting closer to encircling at least one of UA's dug-in positions. UA corrected the mistake and sent back reinforcements, but some damage is done, and Russia may be in a position to crack them now.

Denys Davydov's take is far more optimistic (first 1:18 min) - or rather, he just lets us now there is heavy fighting, and the Russians lost a whopping 500 (five hundred) soldiers in just day - in addition to all their usual daily losses in other segments of the front. Denys owever does not tell us about UA casualties, so it's not possible to fathom whether 500 casualties is actually a loss for Russia.

---

It's my general impression that Russia has lately been getting serious about fighting back hard - Ukraine has not advanced anywhere in recent days, and fighting is heavy in the areas of Kupyiansk, Kremmina, Bahmut, Donetsk, plus forces are active in the Kherson region (with little indication who is doing what). Russia is doing this in part with newly mobilized soldiers, while Ukraine is getting spread a bit thin, they have to carefully balance resources.
In light of this, a threat from out of Belarus, however implausible on its own terms, may be relevant as it binds Ukraine resources.

---

I heard one possible reason why Russia is going after electricity - and now, additionally, trying to throw in the breaks on food shipments:
Ukraine lately has been exporting these two things - electricity and food. And probably little else. So Putin may actually try to dry up Ukraine's revenues from exports, in an overall strategy to bleed Western budgets: Everything Ukraine can't buy but needs for survival (whether ammo or warm underwear), the West must supply. Putin may hope that political opposition to such carte blanche support may be dwindling over coming months in some countries - not least of which a post-mid-term USA.

[jimbob]

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Interesting analysis of what we know about the USV attack

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Well the Westland Wildcat has now carried 20 Martlet missils a few weeks ago

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-an...ter-key-trials

Fun Irony here: Wheh the British bought the F4F Wildcat fighter in 1941, they renamed it The Martlet......

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Oystein

I heard one possible reason why Russia is going after electricity - and now, additionally, trying to throw in the breaks on food shipments:
Ukraine lately has been exporting these two things - electricity and food. And probably little else. So Putin may actually try to dry up Ukraine's revenues from exports, in an overall strategy to bleed Western budgets: Everything Ukraine can't buy but needs for survival (whether ammo or warm underwear), the West must supply. Putin may hope that political opposition to such carte blanche support may be dwindling over coming months in some countries - not least of which a post-mid-term USA.

I've seen this ad on TV a few times in the last few days (I cannot find it on YT, but heres some screenshots of it):

https://twitter.com/BLSchmitt/status...85829487153153

Shows worried looking people and essentially says, theres problems of some kind in the USA, so Biden is horrible for funding Ukraine. Wonder whose funding it

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Fun Irony here: Wheh the British bought the F4F Wildcat fighter in 1941, they renamed it The Martlet......

Damn! I was going to mention that, but you beat me to it.

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

I've seen this ad on TV a few times in the last few days (I cannot find it on YT, but heres some screenshots of it):

https://twitter.com/BLSchmitt/status...85829487153153

Shows worried looking people and essentially says, theres problems of some kind in the USA, so Biden is horrible for funding Ukraine. Wonder whose funding it

"Citizens for Sanity" is run by notorious white nationalist Stephen Miller. They've been running horrifically racist ads all over the place.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

"Citizens for Sanity" is run by notorious white nationalist Stephen Miller. They've been running horrifically racist ads all over the place.

What Miller does not get is that he would be one of the first shipped to the camps if the white nationalist really take over since Miller is a Jew.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by dudalb

What Miller does not get is that he would be one of the first shipped to the camps if the white nationalist really take over since Miller is a Jew.

He looks gentiley.[/Larry David]

[a_unique_person]

Zelensky says Kherson is a trap.

[Filippo Lippi]

Maybe I haven't been following closely enough, but for whom?

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Filippo Lippi

Maybe I haven't been following closely enough, but for whom?

For Ukraine; the Russians are making a big show of evacuating Kherson as if they are abandoning the city when, in fact, they have some of their best units defending it.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Dragon

For Ukraine; the Russians are making a big show of evacuating Kherson as if they are abandoning the city when, in fact, they have some of their best units defending it.

I mean they're saying civilians will evacuate... this leads me to believe they are going to try and hold it. Likely we'll see the first densely urban combat of the war so far. And that is always ugly.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Zelensky says Kherson is a trap.

Source? I'm not seeing this anywhere else on r/ukraine.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

I mean they're saying civilians will evacuate... this leads me to believe they are going to try and hold it. Likely we'll see the first densely urban combat of the war so far. And that is always ugly.

I have a hypothesis that I really hope to see tested sometime soon: The way to handle urban combat in a modern conventional war is to bypass the city and the troops entrenched there, cut off power, water, and road access, and continue maneuvering on to the next strategic nexus. Batter the occupiers with artillery every time they try to sortie. Set up a refugee station and welcome with open arms anyone who exits the city with their hands up.

Russia's best troops are there? Great. Let them rot there, with no food or water or resupply, while the UAF exploits their conspicuous absence from the battlefield. There will be plenty of time to dislodge scurvy-ridden occupiers from the cities, once all the decisive battles have been fought and the war has been won.