Kiev Is Burning

[Colin]

As a convict, I take this option any day over being part of a meat assault, plus learn useful skills and become employable after my sentence is over.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

As I just said, if NATO wanted a problem with Russia, Ukraine was the place to find it.   

 

[Roman Alymov]

37 minutes ago, Colin said:

As a convict, I take this option any day over being part of a meat assault, plus learn useful skills and become employable after my sentence is over.

 

As always, Western reporting is missing the point: Russian Rail is now running massive program of developing East-West link (Baikal-Amur railway etc.). It is not "wartime pressure" (as started more than a decade ago, and war cargo is not so massive to require such a program) but mostly related to coal export and trade with China in general. To some extent, it is "Pivot to Asia" Russian way. No idea what "heavy labor" could convicts do at railway construction - as there is significant shortage of welders, heavy equipment drivers etc., not men with shovels who can't do much now. But it was an initiative to allow RusRail to recruit specialists they need ampong convicts.

    Also, strange to hear about shortage of railway freight cars as our Gov was untill recently deliberately reducing the fleet of railway cars by limiting the allowed term of their usage (to boost new production), resulting in quite good freight cars scraped. I have not heard about any easing of this practice.

[Colin]

7 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

As always, Western reporting is missing the point: Russian Rail is now running massive program of developing East-West link (Baikal-Amur railway etc.). It is not "wartime pressure" (as started more than a decade ago, and war cargo is not so massive to require such a program) but mostly related to coal export and trade with China in general. To some extent, it is "Pivot to Asia" Russian way. No idea what "heavy labor" could convicts do at railway construction - as there is significant shortage of welders, heavy equipment drivers etc., not men with shovels who can't do much now. But it was an initiative to allow RusRail to recruit specialists they need ampong convicts.

    Also, strange to hear about shortage of railway freight cars as our Gov was untill recently deliberately reducing the fleet of railway cars by limiting the allowed term of their usage (to boost new production), resulting in quite good freight cars scraped. I have not heard about any easing of this practice.

I have no doubt that different arms of the government work at cross purposes to the other. That is a common feature of pretty much every government system.

[Strannik]

Uke TV channel mentions > 1 mil KIA & MIA (the guy in the video is agog).

I would think if true it's all casualties...

Same channel that aired the interview with Arachamia re: March/Apr 22 peace negotiations. The knives are definitely coming out...

 

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by Strannik

[Roman Alymov]

1 hour ago, Strannik said:

Uke TV channel mentions > 1 mil KIA & MIA (the guy in the video is agog).

I would think if true it's all casualties...

Same channel that aired the interview with Arachamia re: March/Apr 22 peace negotiations. The knives are definitely coming out...

 

 

As for me, it is very strange:

1) 1,126,652 KIA Ukr military personnel is definitely too much, way above any pr-Rus estimation i have seen, and hardly  plausable demographically (total workforce of Ukrtaine in 2020th was about 10 mln)

2) There is no way for Ukr TV channel to know real figure anyway, so they can't leak it even if they would like to.

[Roman Alymov]

1 hour ago, Colin said:

I have no doubt that different arms of the government work at cross purposes to the other. That is a common feature of pretty much every government system.

Couple of relatively fresh reports from East=West rail construction

 

 

 

[Colin]

Make sense to have two tracks as it makes the movement far more efficient. Out here despite being owned by different companies, we use the track on one side of the canyon for all westbound trains and the other side for Eastbound trains. It save money in the long run for both companies. 

 

[txtree99]

• Key Takeaways:

  Russian forces launched the largest drone strike against Ukraine since the start of the full-scale invasion overnight on November 24 to 25 using a new modification of the Iranian Shahed 131/136 drones.

  Ukrainian and Russian forces continue to grapple with the challenges electronic warfare (EW) systems pose on the front.

  Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced on November 25 that Ukraine’s Western partners agreed to transfer warships to Ukraine to protect Ukraine’s grain corridor in the Black Sea.

  Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan stated that Russia has not fulfilled arms export deals to Armenia and offered an alternative arrangement that would allow Russia to keep the weapons against the backdrop of recent deteriorating Russian-Armenian relations.

  Infighting among Russian ultranationalist milbloggers, likely exacerbated by ethnic tensions, has compelled a prominent milblogger to close his Telegram channel.

  Other milbloggers attributed increased infighting among ultranationalist voices about the war in Ukraine to Russian politics and the coming 2024 Russian presidential elections.

  Russian forces conducted offensive operations along the Kupyansk-Svatove-Kreminna line, near Bakhmut, near Avdiivka, west and southwest of Donetsk City, in the Donetsk-Zaporizhia Oblast border area, and in western Zaporizhia Oblast on November 25 and advanced in some areas.

  Russian military commanders are reportedly ignoring frontline units’ requests for drones.

  Ukraine’s Ministry of Reintegration reported on November 24 that over 13,500 Ukrainians returned to Ukraine from Russia via a humanitarian corridor in Sumy Oblast since its establishment in July 2023.
   

• https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-november-25-2023
   

[glenn239]

40 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

As for me, it is very strange:

1) 1,126,652 KIA Ukr military personnel is definitely too much, way above any pr-Rus estimation i have seen, and hardly  plausable demographically (total workforce of Ukrtaine in 2020th was about 10 mln)

Indeed, if it were true the 'pro-Russians' would have a very hard time squaring the circle between that and on how inept the Russian army is... 

[Roman Alymov]

13 minutes ago, Colin said:

Make sense to have two tracks as it makes the movement far more efficient. Out here despite being owned by different companies, we use the track on one side of the canyon for all westbound trains and the other side for Eastbound trains. It save money in the long run for both companies. 

 

The same is now done on Baikal-Amur railroad: initially it was constructed one-track (back in 1970th-1980th it was well enough for estimated cargo traffic) but now is undergoing reconstruction into two-track and even three-track un some places, as current track is overloaded and progress in conmstruction machinery&methodes allows what was very hard/expencive in 1970th.

  Video (in Russai_ about most of topics covered above, even use of prisoners (total number 700 persons) and railroad troops (1700) mentioned. Total forkforce ~16000.

 

[sunday]

For railway aficionados, this guy has an excellent travelogue on the Transsiberian/BAM

https://www.youtube.com/@doc7austin/search?query=bam

[Josh]

40 minutes ago, sunday said:

For railway aficionados, this guy has an excellent travelogue on the Transsiberian/BAM

https://www.youtube.com/@doc7austin/search?query=bam

 

[mandeb48]

Close combat (M2A2)

https://t.me/Rubric_lossesvsu/10169?single

[Josh]

On 11/26/2023 at 11:34 AM, glenn239 said:

I'm at a loss to imagine why you would suppose that designing and building a drone carrier would pose any sort technical challenge for Russia. For the war in Ukraine, this type of machine is not required because the required ranges for strikes are not long.

Because they never have before? Because they rely on Israel, Iran, and China for their current inventory or borrowed designs? Name one active type of Russian built UAV with the ability to carry a load of Lancets. Russia was far behind places like Iran and Turkey in UAV/loitering munition development; you keep acting like they are the pinnacle. They are building a factory to mass produce an Iranian design with basic INS/GPS guidance. The Lancet is probably the sole indigenous success story.

 

On 11/26/2023 at 11:34 AM, glenn239 said:

I see in the news that the Russians have successfully test launched their nuclear powered cruise missile from an aircraft.  Currently this weapon is purely in the nuclear realm, but you do see how in 10 years the propulsion technology could be adapted as the basis of a future weapon truck that can could deliver stand off drones and missiles anywhere in the world?

Do you see a nuclear powered missile as ever being a cost effective way of delivering loitering munitons?

 

On 11/26/2023 at 11:34 AM, glenn239 said:

You suppose alot of things about China that seem more convenient to neocon thinking patterns than appear likely in the world we live in.

I'm just going by current Chinese actions. They might change their policies radically in the future, but right now their support for Russia is tepid and I have listed all the reasons I think that is the case and why that likely won't change in other posts. If and when China starts cranking out weapons for Russia, start an "I told you so" thread.

 

On 11/26/2023 at 11:34 AM, glenn239 said:

The  Russians would have to be pretty foolish not to understand that if they are in a war with the United States, that they will have to undertake a full mobilization.

Hopefully the reason it never happens. But the fact that a full mobilization never happened for *this* war seems to indicate that their capability/willingness for mobilization simply isn't there. They either consider it politically destabilizing or they lack the equipment, logistics, or training capacity to support such a mobilization.

 

On 11/26/2023 at 11:34 AM, glenn239 said:

How many JASSM-ER's does the USAF have?  Your list required about 500 attacks per day, or 15,000 per month.   This article here suggests that the USAF currently has 2,000 of all types of JASSM, and plans for 10,000,

https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/jassm/

USAF purchases have been >500 for the last four years, with a full capacity 550 buy requested for 2024 and additional money requested to increase production to 850/year. I haven't been able to locate an exact count; it would probably take a review of all budget documents and lot numbers. The CSIS Taiwan wargame estimated 6000 AGM-158s of all types (A, B, C) for a war envisioned in 2026. Given production rates, that implies a current total inventory of ~4000-5000, roughly split between the A and B versions, with around 400 LRASMs fielded as well.

But my example of a couple dozen bombers being able to deploy 600+ weapons daily for days or weeks on end was just to provide an example of the kind of volumes a NATO-Russian war would involve. F-15Es out of the UK could easily carry twenty small diameter bombs and a full set of drop tanks, and there's over ten thousand of those. We haven't even gotten into F-16s or F-35s yet, or the USN or non US NATO members. We also haven't addressed the vast number of PGMs the US Army would deploy in such a fight - there's at least one US artillery brigade of 36 M270s in Germany, which would represent a 72 salvo ATACMs strike. About a dozen HIMARS battalions in the CONUS could add to that, plus whatever the Europeans have. The question to me isn't how long could NATO keep that volume of fire, but how long before the entire Russian war machine simply fell apart under that kind of stress? Thousands of guided munitions would be used every day for days or weeks on end, fed with targets from probably the most sophisticated ISR capability in the world.

 

On 11/26/2023 at 11:34 AM, glenn239 said:

For other missile types, a closer approach is required.  What do you suppose the attrition rate will be if the 140 US heavy bombers are approaching to within even 100 or 50 miles of the front lines on a daily basis?

I don't think any US bomber would come closer than a couple hundred miles, outside B-2s (or in several years, B-21s). Attrition would depend on how much of the initial strikes were focused on enemy air defenses and how many Russian aircraft could fight their way through NATO 5th gen fighters. Given the minor successes Ukraine has had engaging S300/400 with NATO cast off ordnance fired from a handful of Soviet aircraft, I personally wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of NATO.

Edited November 28, 2023 by Josh

[Roman Alymov]

Probably the first video confirmation (in good quality) of Leopard 1A5 loss in battle, Svatovo region

https://t.me/creamy_caprice/3348

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Roman Alymov]

8 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

See my post above, not "somewhere" but West from Svatovo. Probably, will be recovered later by pro-Ukrainians since it is not close to contact line - seems like crew was trying to practice long shots from local hilltop.

[TonyE]

Some stills, seems to be little in the way of mods or markings:

Edited November 28, 2023 by TonyE

[Yama]

Mine hit? Seems recoverable unless Russians send a drone to finish it off, though risky on that site.

[glenn239]

On 11/27/2023 at 9:35 AM, Josh said:

Because they never have before? Because they rely on Israel, Iran, and China for their current inventory or borrowed designs? Name one active type of Russian built UAV with the ability to carry a load of Lancets. Russia was far behind places like Iran and Turkey in UAV/loitering munition development;

"Was" far behind.  Before the war, in 2020.  Russian doctrine and industry on the drone front was rudimentary.  Now  drone development is a top industrial priority with no chance of this state of affairs changing in coming decades.  You seem unwilling to acknowledge that the Russians will now construct tens of thousands of drones and missiles  in the post war.  But to me, it's a no-brainer.  This is what Joe Biden has asked them to do, to assemble missiles and drones in their factories, working at three shifts a day for decades until they care capable of delivering truly staggering numbers of attacks.

Quote

If and when China starts cranking out weapons for Russia, start an "I told you so" thread.

Russia wants China's subcomponents for their own weapons production, and Putin's recent announcement is that they want to cooperate on strategic projects in which Russia does not have the resources to go it alone.   I see nothing to suggest that China will not move forward with Russia on both fronts.

Quote

But the fact that a full mobilization never happened for *this* war seems to indicate that their capability/willingness for mobilization simply isn't there.

Like with Sino-Russian cooperation, you see the enemy as being sure to make the choices required that will bail the US out of a dilemma.  The Russians would of course need to undertake a large mobilization if at war with the USA so that the total % of casualties that NATO could inflict on Russian forces would be below the threshold needed for success by way of attrition.  Russian territory itself is of a scale so huge as to be a sanctuary, and the Russians would exploit that to rotate units to and from the battle fronts in Belarus or Ukraine.  From this unassailable position, they would be backed by the full weight of the Chinese economy delivering masses of war material to their ally.  

Quote

USAF purchases have been >500 for the last four years, with a full capacity 550 buy requested for 2024 and additional money requested to increase production to 850/year. I haven't been able to locate an exact count; it would probably take a review of all budget documents and lot numbers. The CSIS Taiwan wargame estimated 6000 AGM-158s of all types (A, B, C) for a war envisioned in 2026. Given production rates, that implies a current total inventory of ~4000-5000, roughly split between the A and B versions, with around 400 LRASMs fielded as well.

So let's say your high side estimate of 5,000 missiles of which 3,000 are a 'never touch' reserve for war with China and Iran. That leaves about 2,000 for Russia, of which defenses (active, EW, decoy, counterstrikes) will account for maybe 40%, leaving 1,200 war shots that hit against an army of 2 to 3 million.  
 

Quote

But my example of a couple dozen bombers being able to deploy 600+ weapons daily for days or weeks on end was just to provide an example of the kind of volumes a NATO-Russian war would involve. F-15Es out of the UK could easily carry twenty small diameter bombs and a full set of drop tanks, and there's over ten thousand of those.

I don't think conventional aircraft carrying small diameter bombs at high altitude are a viable prospect against Russian air defenses.   Aircraft operating from the UK would need to land and refuel before making their strikes, reducing overall tempo.  Nor would basing in the UK make them immune from missile and drone counterstrikes.   Tactical airpower will have to be closer to the front, where they would be subject to constant attrition on the ground and in the air.

Quote

We haven't even gotten into F-16s or F-35s yet, or the USN or non US NATO members. We also haven't addressed the vast number of PGMs the US Army would deploy in such a fight - there's at least one US artillery brigade of 36 M270s in Germany, which would represent a 72 salvo ATACMs strike. About a dozen HIMARS battalions in the CONUS could add to that, plus whatever the Europeans have.

No doubt such weapons would kill tens of thousands of Russian troops, even while Russian weapons of a similar nature did damage in the other direction.  The problem is that tens of thousands is chump change to an army of 2 to 3 million with another 5 or 6 in reserves,  The simple fact is that the Americans can never commit more than a fraction of any of their resources to war with Russia, because of China.  I don't see where the scale of what can be done is anywhere even remotely to the level needed to resolve the problem.  To my eye, you're just proposing with modern kit all the same follies of Operation Barbarossa in a theatre where the distances defeat such schemes.

Quote

The question to me isn't how long could NATO keep that volume of fire, but how long before the entire Russian war machine simply fell apart under that kind of stress?

Generally speaking, NATO airpower can only even reach a small part of the total Russian landmass.   Most of the country is inaccessible and would be receiving more material from factories in China, Iran, and North Korea than NATO itself could provide.  It will not, 'fall apart'.  In order to attempt to deliver the maximum tempo that you outline to the deepest depths of Russia possible, Western airpower will have to base close to the front line, and exercise maximum tempo.  Casualties to drones and missiles strikes will be  unsustainable.

 

 

Edited November 29, 2023 by glenn239

[Strannik]

21 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

"Was" far behind.  Before the war, in 2020.  Russian doctrine and industry on the drone front was rudimentary.  Now  drone development is a top industrial priority with no chance of this state of affairs changing in coming decades.  You seem unwilling to acknowledge that the Russians will now construct tens of thousands of drones and missiles  in the post war.  But to me, it's a no-brainer.  This is what Joe Biden has asked them to do, to assemble missiles and drones in their factories, working at three shifts a day for decades until they care capable of delivering truly staggering numbers of attacks.

Russia wants China's subcomponents for their own weapons production, and Putin's recent announcement is that they want to cooperate on strategic projects in which Russia does not have the resources to go it alone.   I see nothing to suggest that China will not move forward with Russia on both fronts.

Like with Sino-Russian cooperation, you see the enemy as being sure to make the choices required that will bail the US out of a dilemma.  The Russians would of course need to undertake a large mobilization if at war with the USA so that the total % of casualties that NATO could inflict on Russian forces would be below the threshold needed for success by way of attrition.  Russian territory itself is of a scale so huge as to be a sanctuary, and the Russians would exploit that to rotate units to and from the battle fronts in Belarus or Ukraine.  From this unassailable position, they would be backed by the full weight of the Chinese economy delivering masses of war material to their ally.  

So let's say your high side estimate of 5,000 missiles of which 3,000 are a 'never touch' reserve for war with China and Iran. That leaves about 2,000 for Russia, of which defenses (active, EW, decoy, counterstrikes) will account for maybe 40%, leaving 1,200 war shots that hit against an army of 2 to 3 million.  
 

I don't think conventional aircraft carrying small diameter bombs at high altitude are a viable prospect against Russian air defenses.   Aircraft operating from the UK would need to land and refuel before making their strikes, reducing overall tempo.  Nor would basing in the UK make them immune from missile and drone counterstrikes.   Tactical airpower will have to be closer to the front, where they would be subject to constant attrition on the ground and in the air.

No doubt such weapons would kill tens of thousands of Russian troops, even while Russian weapons of a similar nature did damage in the other direction.  The problem is that tens of thousands is chump change to an army of 2 to 3 million with another 5 or 6 in reserves,  The simple fact is that the Americans can never commit more than a fraction of any of their resources to war with Russia, because of China.  I don't see where the scale of what can be done is anywhere even remotely to the level needed to resolve the problem.  To my eye, you're just proposing with modern kit all the same follies of Operation Barbarossa in a theatre where the distances defeat such schemes.

Generally speaking, NATO airpower can only even reach a small part of the total Russian landmass.   Most of the country is inaccessible and would be receiving more material from factories in China, Iran, and North Korea than NATO itself could provide.  It will not, 'fall apart'.  In order to attempt to deliver the maximum tempo that you outline to the deepest depths of Russia possible, Western airpower will have to base close to the front line, and exercise maximum tempo.  Casualties to drones and missiles strikes will be  unsustainable.

 

 

Why would Russia choose to fight the whole NATO conventionally?  There is no reason for RU to attack NATO and if NATO starts - it's lights out.  And in the unlikely case when Polish cavalry gets nuked east of Carpathian mountains -  I have my doubts that US would choose to respond...  

Edited November 29, 2023 by Strannik

[Perun]

5 hours ago, Strannik said:

And in the unlikely case when Polish cavalry gets nuked east of Carpathian mountains -  I have my doubts that US would choose to respond...  

Agree on that, after all US can survive whitout Poland but can not survive if themself (US) are nuked

[mkenny]

16 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Probably the first video confirmation (in good quality) of Leopard 1A5 loss in battle, Svatovo region

https://t.me/creamy_caprice/3348

It is 3 separate films. The first bit is the tank firing and then reversing out without any damage. The tank getting shelled is  further to the  left of the original one and could even be a different tank. Then the close-up views of the disabled tank. All in the same field which is heavily criss-crossed by Leopard tracks (they are distinctive) so I presume this tank(s) made a habit of advancing, shelling the Russians and then pulling back. The Russians noted the routine and  perhaps remote-mined the field which disabled it and made it  ideal for target practise. 

Edited November 29, 2023 by mkenny

[BansheeOne]

Oh ... Leopard 1 A5. Here I was puzzling who might have supplied Leopard 2 A5 to Ukraine, or whether it might be a Strv 122. It doesn't help that with all the add-on turret armor, it looks rather 2-ish on a cellphone ...

After that's cleared up, I'm actually surprised it's not a burnt-out hulk. After all that talk about weak Leopard 1 protection, I sorta expected them to blow up from as much as being hit by a tree branch. 😄