Blyatskrieg

[EACLucifer]

Jet downed. Initially reported as a Russian Sukhoi-24 (aka Fencer) and the location - Yenakijeve - is on the Russian side of the lines, supporting the identification as Russian, however it looks more like a Flanker variant (Su-27, 30, 34, 35 etc) and there's two parachutes in the footage, which means Su-30 or Su-34, or possibly I'm mistaken and it is a Fencer, which also has two crew.

[Martin Y]

Belarusian Hajun Project/Motolko Help reported two drones, one on the radome, one further forward. Well here's footage of that second drone.

Just in the last few seconds there's someone walking over, passing in front of the neighbouring plane. Far enough away to be unlikely to get hurt but they'd have had a grandstand view of what happened.

[Woodchopper]

Yes. I hadn't included that one as I've only seen footage of it after it was destroyed, not what destroyed it. The Russians might well try to destroy bridges to hinder Ukrainian supplies/evacuation, and did so during the battle of Severodonetsk, but the rail bridge in central Bakhmut was clearly blown with demo charges, which confirms Ukrainian intentions at least regarding positions east of the Bakhmutka river.

Yes, it could have blown by the Russians. But I think that the Ukrainians are more likely. Assuming a withdrawal is taking place they'd probably want to hinder any Russian attempt to rapidly follow the withdrawing troops.

ETA Ukraine would have blown it after it had already withdrawan its heavy vehicles that needed the road.

I'm also of the view that the road bridge was demolished after/during retreat as well, I just couldn't be certain, where the rail bridge over the Bakhmutka river was much me definitely a demolition and not an attack from something like a Tyulpan.

Yes, I agree.

[EACLucifer]

Krasnodar. Russians claim just a fire in a field, but it's right by a military air base/flight school.

While it's not clear how successful these attacks are, we have multiple likely Ukrainian attacks in both Krasnodar Krai and Moscow Oblast(!), which should create some interesting dilemnas as to what air defence should be doing.

[EACLucifer]

there seem to be a lot of strikes on occupied parts of Ukraine right now, and Russian air defence has gone berserk.

Russian sources are panicking about this being GL-SDBs, though without evidence. The strikes were mostly within artillery or HIMARS/M270 GMLRS range, the real standout being strikes round Mariupol, which is a bit over 80km from the nearest Ukrainian positions. On a hunch, I checked the weather for Donetsk oblast, and the wind is northerly, if that was still the case last night GMLRS rockets would have had a following wind, and we've seen GMLRS strikes that sort of distance behind the lines, too. If it were the arrival of GL-SDB, I'd have expected some of the targets in the 100-150km range zone to be hit so as to achieve surprise against things like Russian helicopter bases, command posts and logistics chokepoints.

There's also footage emerged of a lot of some kind of MLRS rocket fired at night, the launchers out of sight, and the rockets quickly climbing into the clouds. The sheer number and rate of fire leads me to think these were BM-21 Grads. There's also footage from near one of the places targetted where the sound is just a constant drum-roll of explosions, again pointing to things the the unguided 122mm Grad rockets. Mixing a few of the much more valuable and capable M30/31 guided rockets into a bombardment with BM-21s would have given Russian air defences a very difficult night in the occupied territories.

Suggestion here that the strikes on Mariupol were by Ukrainian guided rocket artillery with a range of 110km.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/u ... nched-ones

We'll get a bit more of an idea if Vilkha-M is in significant use based on what happens with Berdyansk airport, just barely a hundred kilometres from the front line and currently occupied by a dozen or so Russian helicopters. Other targets Vilkha-M might bring into play are cargo ships unloading at Berdyansk harbour - much as happened with a Tochka-U in March - and, if the 130km range is the correct figure and not the 110km - both are cited - then also command positions around Henichesk.

[Stupidosaurus]

I just wanted to say I'm fascinated by this thread and the depth of knowledge and range of information sources on display. Good work all! As you were...

[EACLucifer]

The Serhiy Prytula foundation have clearly been busy - having previously raised money for a Bayraktar TB-2 and satellite imagery access, they've moved onto armoured vehicles. This is about a quarter of the claimed total they have secured.



They mention Spartan APCs, Samaritan armoured ambulances, Samson armoured recovery vehicles and Sultan command vehicles from the CVR-T family, as well as FV-432 APCs and FV-434 maintenance vehicles.

They also mention Alvis Stormers and Shielders - strictly speaking Shielder is a system that mounts on the back of a flat-bed variant of the Stormer, designed to rapidly lay minefields, so it could be they've just got Stormers with Shielder minelaying systems on them, or it could mean they've got those and other Stormer variants - given all these seem to have been purchased from surplus dealers, though, I'm not sure what variants are out there. There's the flatbed variant for carrying Shielder and there's the HVM short range air defence system which carries Starstreak and Martlet missiles, but I'd be surprised if any of those were on the surplus market. Some of that variant have been sent directly as military aid, though, and are apparently very effective. My best guess is that they've got their hands on Stormers with Shielder systems, but flatbed Stormers would have a lot of other potential uses - they could be armed with the ubiquitous twin 23mm cannon or the Bofors L70 AA guns that are being provided by various nations, they could be equipped as heavy mortar carriers, or armed with T-12 Rapira anti-tank guns - a similar approach has been taken with MT-LBs to create the "MT-LB-12" assault gun - and a relatively light fully tracked flatbed with an armoured cab would be fantastic as a logistics vehicle to ferry ammunition or any other supplies across difficult terrain.

[jimbob]

I guess, given the Falklands experience, those are pretty good in mud

[EACLucifer]

I guess, given the Falklands experience, those are pretty good in mud

They've seen service in the Kharkiv offensive, and were very well liked. They are small and nimble, and can sneak around without being too big a target while still transporting troops. This is especially the case when one compares them to a Kirpi MRAP, which is nearly a metre taller, weighs twenty tonnes to the FV103 Spartan's ten and a half, and runs on just four wheels rather than tracks. The Kirpi transports significantly more troops, but a Spartan is still big enough to carry an anti-tank team or a machine gun team, and can give fire support with its machine gun - GPMG in British service but I think these have been supplied unarmed which means they'll end up with one of the various machine guns that's in service in Ukraine.

Poroshenko bought and donated some, and I think some were sent as official aid too, so they aren't new there. Ukrainian troops seem to really like them.

[jimbob]

I guess, given the Falklands experience, those are pretty good in mud

I have just found this anecdote.

https://www.keymilitary.com/article/battle-ready

This gave them an amazingly low ground weight per square inch – less than the weight of a human standing on the ground. I once saw a Scorp reverse up to a fourton truck, hopelessly bogged, axle-deep in mud in a field, the crew floundering ankledeep in the mud as well, attach a tow rope and pull it out all without hardly breaking the surface of the grass. Come 1982, this made it the perfect vehicle to drive across the delicate, sodden peat of the Falklands. By contrast, driving Land Rovers over anything but the few tracks risked them getting hopelessly stuck.

[EACLucifer]

I guess, given the Falklands experience, those are pretty good in mud

I have just found this anecdote.

https://www.keymilitary.com/article/battle-ready

This gave them an amazingly low ground weight per square inch – less than the weight of a human standing on the ground. I once saw a Scorp reverse up to a fourton truck, hopelessly bogged, axle-deep in mud in a field, the crew floundering ankledeep in the mud as well, attach a tow rope and pull it out all without hardly breaking the surface of the grass. Come 1982, this made it the perfect vehicle to drive across the delicate, sodden peat of the Falklands. By contrast, driving Land Rovers over anything but the few tracks risked them getting hopelessly stuck.

We've seen similar in Ukraine, things like MT-LBs just going through whatever's in front of them even if they are basically swimming and having to tow wheeled vehicles, even footage of a TOS-1 chassis without the launcher used to tow wheeled vehicles through the mud.

I'm really quite worried about the mass push towards more wheeled vehicles after Iraq and Afghanistan. There just isn't a substitute for tracks when it comes to muddy terrain, and with continuous rubber tracks coming of age as a technology, a lot of the traditional downsides like wear, noise etc are much reduced. Also a tracked powertrain and suspension intrudes much less into the vehicle, allowing it to be built lower. The Boxers due to enter service with the British Army are about as tall to the top of the hull as Ajax and Challenger are to the top of the turret when you park them side by side.

[jimbob]

I guess, given the Falklands experience, those are pretty good in mud

I have just found this anecdote.

https://www.keymilitary.com/article/battle-ready

This gave them an amazingly low ground weight per square inch – less than the weight of a human standing on the ground. I once saw a Scorp reverse up to a fourton truck, hopelessly bogged, axle-deep in mud in a field, the crew floundering ankledeep in the mud as well, attach a tow rope and pull it out all without hardly breaking the surface of the grass. Come 1982, this made it the perfect vehicle to drive across the delicate, sodden peat of the Falklands. By contrast, driving Land Rovers over anything but the few tracks risked them getting hopelessly stuck.

We've seen similar in Ukraine, things like MT-LBs just going through whatever's in front of them even if they are basically swimming and having to tow wheeled vehicles, even footage of a TOS-1 chassis without the launcher used to tow wheeled vehicles through the mud.

I'm really quite worried about the mass push towards more wheeled vehicles after Iraq and Afghanistan. There just isn't a substitute for tracks when it comes to muddy terrain, and with continuous rubber tracks coming of age as a technology, a lot of the traditional downsides like wear, noise etc are much reduced. Also a tracked powertrain and suspension intrudes much less into the vehicle, allowing it to be built lower. The Boxers due to enter service with the British Army are about as tall to the top of the hull as Ajax and Challenger are to the top of the turret when you park them side by side.

Face it, even the Mark IV, presumably, had pretty decent ability in mud.

Especially compared to armoured cars.

[EACLucifer]

Looks like the privately purchased Spartan APCs are getting .50cal Brownings for armament.




The end result is an incredibly handy little armoured vehicle very suited to the sort of tactics Ukraine used in the famous Kharkhiv offensive last autumn.

[Woodchopper]

I'm really quite worried about the mass push towards more wheeled vehicles after Iraq and Afghanistan. There just isn't a substitute for tracks when it comes to muddy terrain, and with continuous rubber tracks coming of age as a technology, a lot of the traditional downsides like wear, noise etc are much reduced. Also a tracked powertrain and suspension intrudes much less into the vehicle, allowing it to be built lower. The Boxers due to enter service with the British Army are about as tall to the top of the hull as Ajax and Challenger are to the top of the turret when you park them side by side.

Another example of how NATO armed forces were distracted over the past three decades by counter-insurgency operations and ignored what was needed to fight a high intensity war in Europe.

[jimbob]

I'm really quite worried about the mass push towards more wheeled vehicles after Iraq and Afghanistan. There just isn't a substitute for tracks when it comes to muddy terrain, and with continuous rubber tracks coming of age as a technology, a lot of the traditional downsides like wear, noise etc are much reduced. Also a tracked powertrain and suspension intrudes much less into the vehicle, allowing it to be built lower. The Boxers due to enter service with the British Army are about as tall to the top of the hull as Ajax and Challenger are to the top of the turret when you park them side by side.

Another example of how NATO armed forces were distracted over the past three decades by counter-insurgency operations and ignored what was needed to fight a high intensity war in Europe.

Yes, in the link I posted (which is now subscription) the author, (who was adamant that the Scorpion and Scimitar were tracked armoured cars) discussed (IIRC) the battle of Wireless Ridge where he was concerned about Panhard armoured cars (with far more firepower than Scorpion - 90mm guns) but they never saw them. He guessed that they couldn't manage the rocky and steep terrain.

[jimbob]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2 ... -tractors/

These don't have much firepower (twin 14.5mm machine guns) and what looks like a very high profile.

They look like desperation.

The Russian army is welding 80-year-old gun mounts, originally built to arm patrol boats, onto 70-year-old armored tractors—and sending them to Ukraine to get captured by the Ukrainian army.

The first of these weirdo MT-LBs started showing up in Ukraine last month. On or before Feb. 3, Ukrainian forces in Vuhledar captured from hapless Russian brigades a 13-ton, two-crew MT-LB sporting a 2M-7 gunboat turret.

The 2M-7 is an over-under pair of 14.5-millimeter machine guns behind a steel shield. It entered service with Soviet forces in 1945.

[EACLucifer]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2 ... -tractors/

These don't have much firepower (twin 14.5mm machine guns) and what looks like a very high profile.

They look like desperation.

The Russian army is welding 80-year-old gun mounts, originally built to arm patrol boats, onto 70-year-old armored tractors—and sending them to Ukraine to get captured by the Ukrainian army.

The first of these weirdo MT-LBs started showing up in Ukraine last month. On or before Feb. 3, Ukrainian forces in Vuhledar captured from hapless Russian brigades a 13-ton, two-crew MT-LB sporting a 2M-7 gunboat turret.

The 2M-7 is an over-under pair of 14.5-millimeter machine guns behind a steel shield. It entered service with Soviet forces in 1945.

MT-LBs are actually good machines, though armour's a bit thin for use as substitute for frontline APCs or IFVs. KPV 14.5mm heavy machine guns good option against drones. The ridiculous thing here is the mounting. If the shield's strong enough armour to be worth having, then heavy enough to f.ck about with centre of mass, and if not, then gunner very exposed. Probably not going to be great handling cross slopes etc, and unlikely to very ergonomic when stuck up on a vehicle like that. Probably to counter drones, but desperation as sensible option is to fit either existing ZPU-2 twin mount KPVs or to fabricate a new mounting.

[Woodchopper]

Ukrainian troops defending Bakhmut describe heavy casualties, severe ammunition shortages, poor training and poor communication.
https://kyivindependent.com/national/uk ... -protected

[jimbob]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2 ... -tractors/

These don't have much firepower (twin 14.5mm machine guns) and what looks like a very high profile.

They look like desperation.

The Russian army is welding 80-year-old gun mounts, originally built to arm patrol boats, onto 70-year-old armored tractors—and sending them to Ukraine to get captured by the Ukrainian army.

The first of these weirdo MT-LBs started showing up in Ukraine last month. On or before Feb. 3, Ukrainian forces in Vuhledar captured from hapless Russian brigades a 13-ton, two-crew MT-LB sporting a 2M-7 gunboat turret.

The 2M-7 is an over-under pair of 14.5-millimeter machine guns behind a steel shield. It entered service with Soviet forces in 1945.

MT-LBs are actually good machines, though armour's a bit thin for use as substitute for frontline APCs or IFVs. KPV 14.5mm heavy machine guns good option against drones. The ridiculous thing here is the mounting. If the shield's strong enough armour to be worth having, then heavy enough to f.ck about with centre of mass, and if not, then gunner very exposed. Probably not going to be great handling cross slopes etc, and unlikely to very ergonomic when stuck up on a vehicle like that. Probably to counter drones, but desperation as sensible option is to fit either existing ZPU-2 twin mount KPVs or to fabricate a new mounting.

That is the thing. Although these actually look more like the 25mm 2M-3 turret to my eyes, which is 1.5 tonnes.

https://weaponsystems.net/system/474-II ... 5mm%202M-3

as opposed to the 2M-7 which seems lighter and lower profile when put onto the APC. (I'm just looking at the sides of the turret. As far as I can see the 2M-7 has open sides, and the 2M-3 has closed sides.

https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/16 ... 2849648644

[Woodchopper]

Russia has hesitated to buy ballistic missiles from Iran out of concern that Ukraine’s allies would in response supply Kyiv with long-range rockets, according to assessments by western officials.

[…]

Tehran and Moscow explored exchanging modern Russian weaponry for ballistic missiles but those talks have stalled, western officials and analysts said, in part because of the potential repercussions of such a deal for both sides.

[…]

Iran’s Fateh-313 and Zulfiqar ballistic missiles have ranges of 500km and 700km respectively and would add mass if not advanced capabilities to Russia’s depleted missile stocks.

“There have been discussions [on ballistic missiles], but so far they haven’t done it,” said Ali Vaez, Iran project director at the Crisis Group think-tank. “The Europeans [told them] the consequences would be very grave. The US has also drawn a red line.”

https://www.ft.com/content/b9361eae-5b0 ... b11e2579fe

If true then a consequence of supply to Ukraine of long range missiles would be a reciprocal supply by Iran to Russia (and perhaps North Korea).

The US and European ones are much more accurate though.

[headshot]

Tehran and Moscow explored exchanging modern Russian weaponry for ballistic missiles

Ummm…what modern Russian weaponry??

[Woodchopper]

Tehran and Moscow explored exchanging modern Russian weaponry for ballistic missiles

Ummm…what modern Russian weaponry??

Jet fighters I believe.

[EACLucifer]

Tehran and Moscow explored exchanging modern Russian weaponry for ballistic missiles

Ummm…what modern Russian weaponry??

Jet fighters, as Woodchopper has mentioned, and potentially things like S-400 anti-aircraft complexes, that would greatly complicate any attempt to reign in Iran's nuclear program from the air, which is a particular concern given recent news regarding their Uranium enrichment program and estimated breakout time.

[jimbob]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/w ... in-ukraine

Looks like JDAM-ER are now in Ukraine service

[EACLucifer]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/w ... in-ukraine

Looks like JDAM-ER are now in Ukraine service

A very sensible choice of munition that should have been sent ages ago. Small Diameter Bombs would also be a good idea, and likely have a bit better range and accuracy. Depending on which bomb the kits have been fitted to, JDAM-ER can be extremely hard hitting - the JDAM-ER kit is an upgrade kit for an unguided bomb, and the bomb itself can be as heavy as a two thousand pounder. The range won't be anything like the advertised range due to the need to fly low, but for hitting bridges, or thoroughly demolishing occupied buildings, the extra hitting power of a large bomb compared to a small rocket warhead will be significant.

There's rumours floating round of attempts to fit AMRAAMs to Ukraine's existing jets. That would be a lot trickier than JDAMs or HARMs, but give them a real chance to fight back against aerial threats, especially if the more advanced and more modern variants were sent. It would take a lot more than just a mechanical adaptor to carry them aloft, though.