Any time local commanders band together to coordinate operations locally, response time to enemy actions is quicker and operations are more coherent. There are some really solid units in Kursk that are eager to use their own initiative.
Btw, if this RS-26 variant IRBM carries a payload of 800kg, and it consisted of six munitions each with six MIRVs then the weight of each MIRV is only 22.22kg at the very most. Probably a lot less considering the unknown weight of the transport munitions themselves. That's not much mass considering MIRVs have to have ablation shields (you only have to look at the images to see why) to protect any notional explosive payload (if there was any at all). I wonder what the minimum threshold is before the Earth's atmosphere reduces a MIRV to nothing. Kind of like that asteroid/giant ball of trash in The Simpsons episode that erodes to the size of a walnut by the time it hits the ground.
But were all the MIRVs aimed at the factory or the system wasn´t really able to aim different MIRVs at different targets far away from that factory? To me it´s incredible that all MIRVs were so narrowly spaced. If the russians wanted to catch the opportunity to test the missile I would have expected to aim them at some precise targets far away from each other
Good question. I've read around the subject and, first, there's a lot of skepticism that the MIRVs even contained explosives (they are very small in mass) which is is kind of my point about minimum size needed to counter ablation and the high temperatures that re-entry friction creates.
Second, MIRVed nuclear-tipped IRBMs (and ICBMs) are very inaccurate by smart munition standards. That's because they don't need to be with the alll warheads they carry. The blasts they produce do the job. But, in this case, the MIRVs may have been empty (or even solid metal) which is why they didn't do much damage to anything. Sending kamikaze drones would have produced a better result militarily. In contrast, an Iskander with a single warhead is very precise. Firing six conventionally tipped Iskanders at Pivdenmash would do a lot of damage. Thirty-six would be devastating. But the Russians are reliable in their incompetence. They've fired off so many Iskanders since 2022 that they are clearly in short supply. Instead they fire one ultra-expensive IRBM with dummy warheads instead.
In summary, no arms control expert appears to take 36 MIRVs in one not-very-big IRBM seriously. This is a PR/propaganda stunt. Kind of pathetic really.
I think that was not the point. The launch of a IRBM with no warhead is clearly a propaganda move to terrorize people regardless of the target it was aimed at and of the result (hit/not hit). My point was related to the question: having analyzed the video, can we say that that missile is flawed in that it´s not capable of releasing MIRVs to hit different targets?
Oh, apologies. You mean like targets 100km apart? There's no evidence right now but considering they all missed Pivdenmash despite their tight cluster, it does appear unlikely because if they could strike at multiple targets surely they would have? The technique of doing so is well established.
Again appreciate your assessment of the situation in Ukraine.
The corp echelon is particularly intriguing. From your description it sounds a good alternative to current military organization (or lack thereof) in Ukraine.
Certainly the loss of any amount of territory isn't good, and losing more territory is worse. But it's really important to understand the context and scope of each bit of news. War is a contest of wills and there is plenty of fighting left to do. Russia has its own issues that should be alarming to those that want to see it succeed.
Maybe you're looking at it from the wrong perspective? Russia's scorched earth policy in front of Napoleon's advance is celebrated in history. It lead to the collapse of the Grande Armée. That's not very different from Ukraine's approach. They trade land they can afford to lose in exchange for cutting their losses and inflicting catastrophic damage on Russia's military. Seems like a good bargain to me. Btw, Russia has only captured just over 0.25% of Ukraine's total territory this year. One quarter of one per cent. It is always worth bearing that in mind when you read some panicky report about Russia's 'remorseless advance'. Think of all the headlines you've seen that make you feel the way you do and then wonder why reporters don't appear to be able to look on a map and realise how pitiful Russia's effort has been. The VSRF still occupy less of Ukraine than they did in the summer of 2022. This is how wars of attrition work. It's grim and unspectacular but there's no need for depression and gloom. Over this, anyway.
Commenting on the disinterest of the Gen Ustab and other officers against division/ corp grouping - they’re helping the Russians more than their own PBI who bleed in the battlefields for their arrogance and pride.
I have thought in the past of a nephew's comment on his first time playing the Rome Total War computer game that when he approached the game with the same tactics used in the 'real time strategy games' he was used to playing (Starcraft, etc.) - of just seizing resources, generating units, and sending them as a mob to face the enemy, and just feeding in new units as they were produced as the older units were burned up - he was trounced. It was a rude awakening.
The game required him instead to actually set up proper battle lines and coordinate the units on the field. The game designers also built in the increase in combat capabilities as units gained experience. Of course these concepts are just those gained by 'armchair generals' reading and analyzing military history and various 'how to's' written by historians and analysts who may or may not have actual 'hands on' experience.
From reading the updates and analysis here I get the impression that GenStab U is playing 'Starcraft' rather than 'Rome Total War....'
And has a little regard for its 'playing pieces' as the players of the Starcraft genre of RTS games...
As time goes by, people change what they do, either slowly or quickly. You can increase your combat power by reacting to enemy changes quickly and constantly improving how you fight.
Well, here's hoping this change actually helps. But I'm not holding my breath. They really need to do a clean sweep. I was really hoping the new guys would be able to lever out the old school guys, but it appears not.
Excellent work Don. Lets hope at least they go for a '6 brigade' corps; as you say that would at least simulate a divisional level. This lack of structure needs fixed fast.
Interesting reading about the drone carrier 'Dovbush'. That's the future. An easy way to increase FPV range and do some serious damage as long as you have the EW hardening. Impressive.
Often times the Ukrainian authority makes a half step in reforms. It means, the West makes some reforms and does ABCD steps to implement these reforms. Ukraine wants these reforms too and makes only AB steps without CD. Finally, the Ukrainian people don't have improvements and the Ukrainian authority says 'We don't know why it didn't work, we do all the best. What else do you want from us?'
This transition to a corps management system looks like I mentioned above without division units.
Ukrainian high command seem to be as enamoured with Soviet WWII past as much as the Russians - their idea of a corps seems based on Soviet tank and mechanised corps of WWII which were divisional sized elements.
This notion of expense is interesting - is saving a few hryvnias more important than winning the war?
They are literally fighting for their lives yet don't want to change their dysfunctional method of war.
Note if we look at WWII, even the Soviets managed to reform their command structures into a more effective one by late 1942. Yet both the Russians and Ukrainians blunder on near 3 years after the major invasion started.
In fact one could argue the Russians tried to reform much sooner than Ukrainians - getting rid of BTGs, reintroducing divisions, decreasing OODA/kill chain times etc. Lucky for Ukrainians Russians are stymied by too many corrupt and incompetent officers.
Russia didn't get rid of BTGs so much as were unable to support the doctrine with equipment and training. Frankly, they didn't practice the doctrine in peacetime training and therefore couldn't execute it during wartime. So they evolved to mass with largely untrained or minimally trained troops coupled with any vehicle that will reduce the time it takes to approach the objective. They further evolved by sending out small teams until one or more of them found a weak or undefended location and then they committed larger forces to exploit that weekness.
Individual Ukrainian brigades with excellent leadership have evolved both in tactics and organization. This is not done on a national scale and the national leadership isn't taking the successes of the good brigades and replicating them in the other brigades. On top of that, the successful brigades cannot implement organizational changes among their superiors. This change has to come from the top. Someone has to have the understanding and also the strength to overcome bureaucratic resistance.
Dear Don, thank you! Just a bit of theoretical approach from me below, and now listening to this guy, who is now deputy head of president's office: https://youtu.be/AQnVgWA4oP0
I'll borrow a few thoughts from business world.
So I would say in business world especially for middle manager, where you have your team and your superior, and hence need to split your time between those levels, the manageble number of team members is 5, after that you start losing efficiency. As your general meetings with team become less effective and longer then 1 hour, in order for every one to speak, and if you also meet with every team member each day for at least 30 minutes, and then with your peers and your supperior for at least 1.5 hour, this becomes 5 hours a day meetings only, just to be on the same page.
So imagine an army where this principle is held 5 at each level, and then at the bottom you have 10, as there is only one layer to respond too. So:
squad*platoon*company*batallion*brigade*division*army*CinC is 10*5*5*5*5*5*5*5=781250
When you think of it, then things like TRO and Nat.Guard becomes highly questionable. I am sure there is a kind of similar number in all of the branches and units, if not more, so okay, you leave something centralised like logistics, medical facilities, general training, modernisation/overhauls/restoration. With repairs, engineering, front line logistics, stabilisation medicine, formation/specialisation trainings, etc. being in line units.
Especially TRO still sits there as a kind of concept developed before the war. And they would not want to let it go. But what if instead of this, a concept of scalable army is used, like 6*4*4*4*4*4*4*4 (around 100k) in peace time, and then scaled fast by drafting soldiers first, and that going to 163k fast, adding 1 untrained soldier for each long time trained in existing units, and the each commander above squad level is forming 1 reserve unit, 1 new squad, 1 platoon, 1 company, etc. where 80% of "management" is already in place.
So then I am sure that by abandoning TRO and Nat.Guard altogether, a lot of savings would come instead of "extra expenses". But in this case I suspect a whole bunch of top generals would remain without work.
Thanks
I have the impression that Ukraine army is better managed in the Kursk salient than elsewhere or am I wrong?
You're right. And the reasons are explained here:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-151778965
- and in few earlier 'updates'.
Any time local commanders band together to coordinate operations locally, response time to enemy actions is quicker and operations are more coherent. There are some really solid units in Kursk that are eager to use their own initiative.
Thanks Don. As ever.
Btw, if this RS-26 variant IRBM carries a payload of 800kg, and it consisted of six munitions each with six MIRVs then the weight of each MIRV is only 22.22kg at the very most. Probably a lot less considering the unknown weight of the transport munitions themselves. That's not much mass considering MIRVs have to have ablation shields (you only have to look at the images to see why) to protect any notional explosive payload (if there was any at all). I wonder what the minimum threshold is before the Earth's atmosphere reduces a MIRV to nothing. Kind of like that asteroid/giant ball of trash in The Simpsons episode that erodes to the size of a walnut by the time it hits the ground.
Meanwhile it's sure: MIRVs have had no explosive fillers.
BTW, they all missed the Pivdenmash: what was damaged was an old warehouse, south of the complex.
So a bit like firing 36 artillery rounds at a target over the horizon and on only an approximate bearing. Awesome.
But were all the MIRVs aimed at the factory or the system wasn´t really able to aim different MIRVs at different targets far away from that factory? To me it´s incredible that all MIRVs were so narrowly spaced. If the russians wanted to catch the opportunity to test the missile I would have expected to aim them at some precise targets far away from each other
Good question. I've read around the subject and, first, there's a lot of skepticism that the MIRVs even contained explosives (they are very small in mass) which is is kind of my point about minimum size needed to counter ablation and the high temperatures that re-entry friction creates.
Second, MIRVed nuclear-tipped IRBMs (and ICBMs) are very inaccurate by smart munition standards. That's because they don't need to be with the alll warheads they carry. The blasts they produce do the job. But, in this case, the MIRVs may have been empty (or even solid metal) which is why they didn't do much damage to anything. Sending kamikaze drones would have produced a better result militarily. In contrast, an Iskander with a single warhead is very precise. Firing six conventionally tipped Iskanders at Pivdenmash would do a lot of damage. Thirty-six would be devastating. But the Russians are reliable in their incompetence. They've fired off so many Iskanders since 2022 that they are clearly in short supply. Instead they fire one ultra-expensive IRBM with dummy warheads instead.
In summary, no arms control expert appears to take 36 MIRVs in one not-very-big IRBM seriously. This is a PR/propaganda stunt. Kind of pathetic really.
I think that was not the point. The launch of a IRBM with no warhead is clearly a propaganda move to terrorize people regardless of the target it was aimed at and of the result (hit/not hit). My point was related to the question: having analyzed the video, can we say that that missile is flawed in that it´s not capable of releasing MIRVs to hit different targets?
Oh, apologies. You mean like targets 100km apart? There's no evidence right now but considering they all missed Pivdenmash despite their tight cluster, it does appear unlikely because if they could strike at multiple targets surely they would have? The technique of doing so is well established.
Again appreciate your assessment of the situation in Ukraine.
The corp echelon is particularly intriguing. From your description it sounds a good alternative to current military organization (or lack thereof) in Ukraine.
I’m getting very depressed with all this talk of ‘slow collapse’ in so many quarters. Is there any true hope for Ukraine.
The news from Romania makes me wonder if Russian domination of Europe is coming in sight. Depression and gloom
Certainly the loss of any amount of territory isn't good, and losing more territory is worse. But it's really important to understand the context and scope of each bit of news. War is a contest of wills and there is plenty of fighting left to do. Russia has its own issues that should be alarming to those that want to see it succeed.
Maybe you're looking at it from the wrong perspective? Russia's scorched earth policy in front of Napoleon's advance is celebrated in history. It lead to the collapse of the Grande Armée. That's not very different from Ukraine's approach. They trade land they can afford to lose in exchange for cutting their losses and inflicting catastrophic damage on Russia's military. Seems like a good bargain to me. Btw, Russia has only captured just over 0.25% of Ukraine's total territory this year. One quarter of one per cent. It is always worth bearing that in mind when you read some panicky report about Russia's 'remorseless advance'. Think of all the headlines you've seen that make you feel the way you do and then wonder why reporters don't appear to be able to look on a map and realise how pitiful Russia's effort has been. The VSRF still occupy less of Ukraine than they did in the summer of 2022. This is how wars of attrition work. It's grim and unspectacular but there's no need for depression and gloom. Over this, anyway.
Commenting on the disinterest of the Gen Ustab and other officers against division/ corp grouping - they’re helping the Russians more than their own PBI who bleed in the battlefields for their arrogance and pride.
It's very difficult to change a mindset even if there is a will to do so.
I have thought in the past of a nephew's comment on his first time playing the Rome Total War computer game that when he approached the game with the same tactics used in the 'real time strategy games' he was used to playing (Starcraft, etc.) - of just seizing resources, generating units, and sending them as a mob to face the enemy, and just feeding in new units as they were produced as the older units were burned up - he was trounced. It was a rude awakening.
The game required him instead to actually set up proper battle lines and coordinate the units on the field. The game designers also built in the increase in combat capabilities as units gained experience. Of course these concepts are just those gained by 'armchair generals' reading and analyzing military history and various 'how to's' written by historians and analysts who may or may not have actual 'hands on' experience.
From reading the updates and analysis here I get the impression that GenStab U is playing 'Starcraft' rather than 'Rome Total War....'
And has a little regard for its 'playing pieces' as the players of the Starcraft genre of RTS games...
As time goes by, people change what they do, either slowly or quickly. You can increase your combat power by reacting to enemy changes quickly and constantly improving how you fight.
In the case of computer gaming that is what my nephew did.
Unfortunately, it seems Genstab U has yet to do so...
Well, here's hoping this change actually helps. But I'm not holding my breath. They really need to do a clean sweep. I was really hoping the new guys would be able to lever out the old school guys, but it appears not.
Excellent work Don. Lets hope at least they go for a '6 brigade' corps; as you say that would at least simulate a divisional level. This lack of structure needs fixed fast.
Interesting reading about the drone carrier 'Dovbush'. That's the future. An easy way to increase FPV range and do some serious damage as long as you have the EW hardening. Impressive.
We'll see what happens regarding any organizational changes.
The drone carrier is probably just an interim technology as capabilities evolve, much like fiber optic drones.
Often times the Ukrainian authority makes a half step in reforms. It means, the West makes some reforms and does ABCD steps to implement these reforms. Ukraine wants these reforms too and makes only AB steps without CD. Finally, the Ukrainian people don't have improvements and the Ukrainian authority says 'We don't know why it didn't work, we do all the best. What else do you want from us?'
This transition to a corps management system looks like I mentioned above without division units.
Ukrainian high command seem to be as enamoured with Soviet WWII past as much as the Russians - their idea of a corps seems based on Soviet tank and mechanised corps of WWII which were divisional sized elements.
This notion of expense is interesting - is saving a few hryvnias more important than winning the war?
They are literally fighting for their lives yet don't want to change their dysfunctional method of war.
Note if we look at WWII, even the Soviets managed to reform their command structures into a more effective one by late 1942. Yet both the Russians and Ukrainians blunder on near 3 years after the major invasion started.
In fact one could argue the Russians tried to reform much sooner than Ukrainians - getting rid of BTGs, reintroducing divisions, decreasing OODA/kill chain times etc. Lucky for Ukrainians Russians are stymied by too many corrupt and incompetent officers.
Russia didn't get rid of BTGs so much as were unable to support the doctrine with equipment and training. Frankly, they didn't practice the doctrine in peacetime training and therefore couldn't execute it during wartime. So they evolved to mass with largely untrained or minimally trained troops coupled with any vehicle that will reduce the time it takes to approach the objective. They further evolved by sending out small teams until one or more of them found a weak or undefended location and then they committed larger forces to exploit that weekness.
Individual Ukrainian brigades with excellent leadership have evolved both in tactics and organization. This is not done on a national scale and the national leadership isn't taking the successes of the good brigades and replicating them in the other brigades. On top of that, the successful brigades cannot implement organizational changes among their superiors. This change has to come from the top. Someone has to have the understanding and also the strength to overcome bureaucratic resistance.
Also the Ukrainians had already learned how to handle BTGs in 2014 when they defeated several of them in a number of encounters.
BTGs was always flawed as it didn't just lack infantry but also recce, EW, AA etc. It reminded me of Panzer Brigades of WWII but with more artillery.
Thank you very much.
I see that there's a new commander of ground forces in Ukraine since today.
Should this be a first step for a reorganization?
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/zelenskiy-appoints-new-commander-ukraines-land-forces-2024-11-29/
Dear Don, thank you! Just a bit of theoretical approach from me below, and now listening to this guy, who is now deputy head of president's office: https://youtu.be/AQnVgWA4oP0
I'll borrow a few thoughts from business world.
So I would say in business world especially for middle manager, where you have your team and your superior, and hence need to split your time between those levels, the manageble number of team members is 5, after that you start losing efficiency. As your general meetings with team become less effective and longer then 1 hour, in order for every one to speak, and if you also meet with every team member each day for at least 30 minutes, and then with your peers and your supperior for at least 1.5 hour, this becomes 5 hours a day meetings only, just to be on the same page.
So imagine an army where this principle is held 5 at each level, and then at the bottom you have 10, as there is only one layer to respond too. So:
squad*platoon*company*batallion*brigade*division*army*CinC is 10*5*5*5*5*5*5*5=781250
When you think of it, then things like TRO and Nat.Guard becomes highly questionable. I am sure there is a kind of similar number in all of the branches and units, if not more, so okay, you leave something centralised like logistics, medical facilities, general training, modernisation/overhauls/restoration. With repairs, engineering, front line logistics, stabilisation medicine, formation/specialisation trainings, etc. being in line units.
Especially TRO still sits there as a kind of concept developed before the war. And they would not want to let it go. But what if instead of this, a concept of scalable army is used, like 6*4*4*4*4*4*4*4 (around 100k) in peace time, and then scaled fast by drafting soldiers first, and that going to 163k fast, adding 1 untrained soldier for each long time trained in existing units, and the each commander above squad level is forming 1 reserve unit, 1 new squad, 1 platoon, 1 company, etc. where 80% of "management" is already in place.
So then I am sure that by abandoning TRO and Nat.Guard altogether, a lot of savings would come instead of "extra expenses". But in this case I suspect a whole bunch of top generals would remain without work.