Lessons (Already) Learned From The Ukraine War - Military, Political, Technical

[Roman Alymov]

2 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

I think it's safe to say that if Russian AD was useless, UKR jets would fly more sorties. The absence of a signal is the signal here.

From today's briefing by Russian Defence Ministry

Aviation and air defence means of the Russian Aerospace Forces shot down 4 Su-24 aircraft of the Ukrainian Air Force over Chernigov region, including 2 near Repka and 2 more near Gorodnya. 1 Ukrainian Su-27 fighter jet has been shot down near Kramatorsk, Donetsk region.

During the day, 19 Ukrainian unmanned aerial vehicles were destroyed near Kapitonovka, Prishib, Andreevka, Balakleya, Bulgakovo, Bezymyanoe, Gorodnya, Zgurovka, Krasnogorlovka, Mandrykino, Mariupol, Termakhovka, Tolkachi, Chernobaevka and Yakovlevka.

In addition, 5 missiles of the Ukrainian Smerch multiple launch rocket system were shot down in the air near Chernobaevka airfield, Kherson region.

Unfortunatelly no reporting of  how they were shot down.
 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

20 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

 

I think it's safe to say that if Russian AD was useless, UKR jets would fly more sorties. The absence of a signal is the signal here.

We dont know that is the only reason. It may be lack of fuel, parts, or just tactics. The interview with the Mig29 pilot the other day seems to indicate they are very much picking their fights, possibly in the same way the North Vietnamese once did.

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

8 hours ago, Ssnake said:

 

I think it's safe to say that if Russian AD was useless, UKR jets would fly more sorties. The absence of a signal is the signal here.

Point taken. Still, as we don’t know how many planes they have or how many sorties they’re flying it’s difficult to assess lethality.

According to Russian sources, Ukranian forces are launching MANPADS as there was no tomorrow -> low lethality if true. We don’t know if it’s the same for the Russians 

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

We dont know that is the only reason. It may be lack of fuel, parts, or just tactics. The interview with the Mig29 pilot the other day seems to indicate they are very much picking their fights, possibly in the same way the North Vietnamese once did.

Problem is they don’t have air bases off limits to the Russians. Still, looks like they still have some capacity left which is remarkable after almost five weeks of warfare 

[WRW]

A question 

As i see it this was a relatively soft invasion. At least so far.

What would have gappened with Russians came in heavy from the start. Basically blasting all and anything in its path

[Josh]

On 3/27/2022 at 6:46 AM, John T said:

Sorry if I'm  a bit off on modern arms,

late during the cold war, terminaly guided indirect fire was projected as the end of soviet tank armies.
(At least from the producers)
Like  SaDArm/Bonus et al.

Now when the front in Ukraine  becomes more static, can a tank or BMP just dig in and expect to survive?
Any similar non- Soviet Russian rounds for Ukraine? (122 and 152 mm guns) 

Or should they go for a simple rocket launcher with guided submunitions?
As I expects counter battery fire would be one of the main threats. And both sides have similar capacity.
Anything seen can be killed, then you need to remain unseen. and huge MRLS systems seems to me as too easily identified and destroyed

 

 

And question 2:
If a NLAW todays costs like USD 40 000, produced in relative small quantities.
Will PGM cost more than a iPhone if produced in bigger quantities?

 

 

The US at least is moving towards PGM artillery rounds for destructive fires. There is a guidance kit that fits onto a standard arty round that provides near PGM level terminal guidance. Additionally, the US is extending the range of its artillery units with the Long Range Precision Fires program. This includes a new long ranged SP gun based on the M107 (ERCA), a new extended range GMLRS round, and the PrSM missile. They intend to mate these platforms with AI analysis of imagery to ID targets and a second AI program that priorities targets and assigns them to available fire assets. The idea is to dramatically reduce the time from observation to firing a mission, and to use guided rounds to achieve terminal results on point targets.

[Roman Alymov]

16 minutes ago, Josh said:

The US at least is moving towards PGM artillery rounds for destructive fires. There is a guidance kit that fits onto a standard arty round that provides near PGM level terminal guidance. Additionally, the US is extending the range of its artillery units with the Long Range Precision Fires program. This includes a new long ranged SP gun based on the M107 (ERCA), a new extended range GMLRS round, and the PrSM missile. They intend to mate these platforms with AI analysis of imagery to ID targets and a second AI program that priorities targets and assigns them to available fire assets. The idea is to dramatically reduce the time from observation to firing a mission, and to use guided rounds to achieve terminal results on point targets.

Rus Army is also playing with guided  artillery rounds and integrating recon-fire groups where UAV is directly linked to artilley unit.

[Roman Alymov]

1 hour ago, WRW said:

A question 

As i see it this was a relatively soft invasion. At least so far.

What would have gappened with Russians came in heavy from the start. Basically blasting all and anything in its path

With "blasting all and anything", there is no need to enter Ukraine - since destruction of about 100-150 key targets, including 30 bridges across Dniper + few other bridges, non-nuclear parts of all 15 nuclear reactors (-60% of all electricity), turbines of hidropower stations,  switching off pipe NG (all other electricity, heating, running water etc) will de-facto eliminate Ukraine as industrial country, and even massive Western monetary investments would be not enough to fix it quickly enough (producing big turbine from order to installation takes years). And Ukraine can't go rural  - it;s population is still too big for that.

[EchoFiveMike]

I'm interested how that low-pressure 100mm gun 2A70 on the BMP3 etc is working out?  Seems quite handy, would be a lot of utility on something like Stryker, vs the 105mm HP gun.  Same niche as 12cm gun-mortar.  S/F....Ken M 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Works out fine. The autoloader? Not so much.

 

[bojan]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Works out fine. The autoloader? Not so much.

Any evidence of that?

[Josh]

The 105mm seemed like a poor choice for fire support. Can I assume the choice was driven by there being left over ammunition in the system and/or a desire to to retain a high velocity round for AT work? The 100mm seems like over kill for an IFV; do BMP-2/3 operate more as assault support platforms rather than infantry carriers? For the airborne, having a BMD-3 as a dedicated fire support vehicles makes a lot of sense. It's a lot of firepower in a light vehicle. I'm guessing these have filled the role that used to be occupied by the old ASU-85s in the 80's?

Regarding lessons learned more generally, I agree with bojan that we don't have nearly enough information to make any conclusions that aren't driven mostly by assumptions. Have the Javelins and NLAWs been effective? I'd have thought so, but honestly I've seen almost no footage of them at work one way or the other. We haven't heard hardly anything solid about the situation in the air. About the I'd only the lessons I'd take away so far are:

 

Vehicle maintenance and inspections are a big deal. I've seen enough evidence of poorly maintained vehicles so far to think this was a real issue, if not at the strategic level, then at least at the unit level in terms of vehicle attrition.

UAVs are a huge enabler for artillery and should be organic to the maneuver unit employing the artillery, ideally down to the recon element of that unit.

BTG formations are too infantry and recon light to operate in truly hostile territory; IMO a reorganization is needed for areas where local proxies or otherwise friendly elements can't secure the rear and flanks.

I'd also hazard a guess that large scale unit training is absolutely necessary for armored/mechanized/motorized units. I'm only a member of the 1st Chairborne! division, but I've see a fair amount of evidence of Russian units bunching up or deploying a hap hazard fashion (that convoy that came under artillery fire in drone footage being the singular best example). Never tanked for Sam, but I get the impression that these units haven't trained extensively as a full BTG unit; these look like basic mistakes to me. If I were to guess I would think that training occurred at the company level and wasn't practiced rigorously as a combined arms formation.

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Josh

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

Any evidence of that?

Yes, lots, on Twitter.

There was a particularly interesting one I nearly posted up about a week ago, where there was an engine block, a chunk of drive sproket and transmission, a mantlet and gun and a roll of track hung in a tree. The rest of the vehicle had disintegrated and gone to the 4 winds. Im fact im finding it a struggle to find any intact examples that have been on fire.

 

[bojan]

Utter ignorance of causes and effects.

That has nothing to do with autoloader. It has to do with ammo not equipped with blow-out pannels. Which no IFV with a traditional turret has, and there are evidence of BMP-2. Bradley and Warrior that has suffered same catastrophic explosions, despite not having 100mm.  Are all CV-90s, ASCOD, Bradleys, Warriors and the rest also crap?

Quote

Im fact im finding it a struggle to find any intact examples that have been on fire

It is aluminium hulled, you will not find "intact" examples of M113 or Bradley that have been on fire either.

BTW, every vehicle that has been in the serious fire is only fit for scrapping, no matter how "intact" it looks, so if it is a melted crap or just burned crap does not matter one bit, other than to you and your ilk.

Edited March 29, 2022 by bojan

[Josh]

8 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, lots, on Twitter.

There was a particularly interesting one I nearly posted up about a week ago, where there was an engine block, a chunk of drive sproket and transmission, a mantlet and gun and a roll of track hung in a tree. The rest of the vehicle had disintegrated and gone to the 4 winds. Im fact im finding it a struggle to find any intact examples that have been on fire.

 

That doesn't indicate any problem with the autoloader, just that a lightly armored fire support vehicle carrying ammunition is going to suffer a lot of damage after sustaining a fire. There's no free lunch; I doubt Striker 105mms are going to do any better.

[bojan]

3 hours ago, Josh said:

...The 100mm seems like over kill for an IFV; do BMP-2/3 operate more as assault support platforms rather than infantry carriers?...

One of the reasons for 100mm on BMP-3 was that future tanks would have reduced ammo load due the increase in caliber, so reduced long-term firepower of mechanized formations would have to be compensated by IFVs.

100 + 30mm is more space efficient, with actually better capabilities (except anti-air) than 35mm or 40mm + vastly more efficient ammo storage (35mm armed CV-90 has 35 + 35 ready rounds, BMP/D-3 have 500x 30mm, 32 x 100mm + 3 x ATGM ready, with additional 8 x 100mm and 5 x ATGM stored). 100mm is incredibly compact (being very low velocity weapon) and adds significant HE punch. If you want IFV with a traditional turret (vs RWS) or a dedicated FSV, it is one of the better solutions. I don't like gun-launched ATGM, preferring external mounts, but it is not a serious drawback.

Doctrinally, BMP series are all threated the same, they are integral part of the mechanized squad.

Quote

 For the airborne, having a BMD-3 as a dedicated fire support vehicles makes a lot of sense. It's a lot of firepower in a light vehicle. I'm guessing these have filled the role that used to be occupied by the old ASU-85s in the 80's?

It is complicated story. Formally ASU-85s were obsoleted by BMD-1, as each vehicle was capable of fulfilling AT role if needed. It was further obsoleted by introduction of dedicated airborne ATGM carrier, BTR-RD and 2S9 120mm SP gun-mortar. But paras always wanted more firepower, and 2S25 Sprut was introduced to fulfills the role of ASU-85, brigade level AT/direct HE fire support.

Soviet/Russian paras are fully mechanized formation, riding in the mix of BTR-D/BTR-MD airborne APCs and BMD series of airborne IFVs. They can operate w/o those (Hostomel hello assault being most recent example), but they are integral part of their formations.

Edited March 29, 2022 by bojan

[darkkwulfe]

Melted Bradley.

 

 

.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Very few have I seen with its constituent parts scattered to the 4 winds though. 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Stuart Galbraith

[Josh]

A totally written off vehicle is still a totally written off vehicle. The final end of a BMD when a penetration or fire gets to the ammo may be more dramatic, but if a Brad's TOWs cook off it's still a total loss and probably 100% fatal for anyone still in it, so seems to me same result for all practical purposes. The Russians have requirements for light weight and fire support; nothing is going to mitigate the dangers of having large caliber HE ammo inside the crew compartment. This is something most any IFV has to deal with.

[Ssnake]

Slow burn suggests however that there's still a chance for crew and squad to evacuate.

Complete obliteration often means, nobody got out in time.

[bojan]

Complete obliteration* often comes after a prolonged burn, when HE in the shells has a chance to heat up, become less stable and be driven to explode as a consequence. HE exploding like that is very unlikely occurrence with "just" a direct hit to HE warhead, when HE filler will most often "just" burn**, and not explode And if there is a prolonged burning vehicle is most probably evacuated.

*Israeli conclusion from 1973.

** Common method for disabling large EO is to hit it with HEAT or EFP, as it will set explosives on fire w/o detonating them. From a local guy, for a few hundreds destroyed shels/bombs in his career only once he encountered full order detonation during such procedure, and that was WW1 shell with picrate filler.

Edited March 29, 2022 by bojan

[seahawk]

3 hours ago, bojan said:

One of the reasons for 100mm on BMP-3 was that future tanks would have reduced ammo load due the increase in caliber, so reduced long-term firepower of mechanized formations would have to be compensated by IFVs.

100 + 30mm is more space efficient, with actually better capabilities (except anti-air) than 35mm or 40mm + vastly more efficient ammo storage (35mm armed CV-90 has 35 + 35 ready rounds, BMP/D-3 have 500x 30mm, 32 x 100mm + 3 x ATGM ready, with additional 8 x 100mm and 5 x ATGM stored). 100mm is incredibly compact (being very low velocity weapon) and adds significant HE punch. If you want IFV with a traditional turret (vs RWS) or a dedicated FSV, it is one of the better solutions. I don't like gun-launched ATGM, preferring external mounts, but it is not a serious drawback.

Doctrinally, BMP series are all threated the same, they are integral part of the mechanized squad.

It is complicated story. Formally ASU-85s were obsoleted by BMD-1, as each vehicle was capable of fulfilling AT role if needed. It was further obsoleted by introduction of dedicated airborne ATGM carrier, BTR-RD and 2S9 120mm SP gun-mortar. But paras always wanted more firepower, and 2S25 Sprut was introduced to fulfills the role of ASU-85, brigade level AT/direct HE fire support.

Soviet/Russian paras are fully mechanized formation, riding in the mix of BTR-D/BTR-MD airborne APCs and BMD series of airborne IFVs. They can operate w/o those (Hostomel hello assault being most recent example), but they are integral part of their formations.

The BMP-3 is not a good IFV, because of the poor access and entry for the infantry.

[bojan]

Yes, but we are not discussing that aspect here, but it's armament. And you could mount that armament onto any vehicle you like, from M113 to CV-90.

Edited March 29, 2022 by bojan

[seahawk]

9 minutes ago, bojan said:

Yes, but we are not discussing that aspect here, but it's armament. And you could mount that armament onto any vehicle you like, from M113 to CV-90.

No you can not, because for the same amount of ammo as the BMP-3 carries, the other vehicles would also be restricted in their usefulness as a IFV.

BMP-3 is just too focussed on weapons. Remove the infantry and make it a fire support vehicle and it would be okay.

[Josh]

From what I understand BTGs use a mix of Bimps and BTRs for that reason, though I think there are access complaints associated with the BTR design as well.