It's a war of attrition, which means both sides are trying to outlast each other. Not counting Kursk, Ukraine is slowly losing territory, but it's a big enough country that it will not lose the war because of territorial loss. It's a question of who runs out of equipment, personnel and morale first.
Russia is losing equipment at a faster rate it is producing equipment. On top of that, 2/3 of the equipment it's "producing" is refurbished equipment pulled from storage. They're quickly running out stored equipment. The attacks on the ammo depots destroyed a huge amount of ammo, but if Ukraine is able to attack the factories that produce the ammo it will have an even bigger impact on the war. And then there is the economy. Ukraine's economy would already have fallen apart without allied assistance but with it, it is stable and it's wartime production is increasing. Russia's war economy has no outside assistance and its ability to support production or sustain the civilian population will be severely compromised in about a year's time.
Manpower is Ukraine's biggest concern. War is more easily fought by young men and Ukraine doesn't have enough young men to sustain a large army over a long period of time. It also has a limited supply of middle-aged men. This, with 15% of the Ukrainian army being staffed by women. The Ukrainian army won't collapse because of a lack of manpower but the pressure on the army will increase. Ukraine should prioritize measures that reduces casualties, such as developing a culture of standardized training and digging in, plus honest reviews of operations coupled with accountability.
Russia has its own manpower concerns. The economy is suffering from low unemployment, meaning there are not enough people for all the jobs that need to be filled. Every month, Russia pulls 20-30,000 men from the workforce and sends them to the army. With each month, that issue increases the pressure on the Russian economy. On top of that, it is increasingly difficult to voluntarily attract men to the army, even though they keep increasing the signing bonus. Russia has just under four times the population of Ukraine and it is also suffering about 3-4 times the casualties as Ukraine. It does not want to conscript soldiers for combat due to the impact it has on the morale of the population, but it may not be able to avoid conscription in the future.
And then there is the will to fight. Ultimately, more than manpower and production, this is the determining factor of which side will win. If one side determines it's no longer worth the fight then the other side will win. Right now, although both sides are increasingly weary of war, neither side shows any interest in giving up on its objectives.
So the war of wills continues. Ukrainian/allied production continues to increase. Ukrainian strategic bombing, the expenditure of stored equipment and the Russian economy will decrease Russian production over time and the rate of Russian casualties will increase as a result. As time goes by, it will be harder for Russia to sustain the war effort than it will be for Ukraine.
It all depends upon Donald Trump and the U.S. Presidential election. If Trump wins, then he will force a negotiation upon Ukraine. Putin then wins "sort of" unless the EU and NATO pick up the slack. Would the Europeans then do so?
Its obvious that Donald Trump if re-elected could hurt Ukraine quite much. It is likely he will try. But to really force it to stop he will discover that its not so easy without a lot of activity from his side. He will first have to dictate some kind of agreement. Because both sides are likely to tell him, well we would like to stop now, but those evil bastards figthing us are not stopping. And Putin, being Putin would probably try to increase or improve the deal and thus prolong everything. And then Trump would get distracted by something (Nethanayue making a golf course for him in Gaza or some such)… and the war would go. Trump doesnt have the interest or willpower to truly stop the war. But hurt Ukraine? Yes he can. He can sabotage the aid, he can make all kinds of petty small issues.I dont know exactly what (neither does he, but he has a talent for nastiness). A lot would also depend on what Biden did between November and January. We ca be sure that for good and bad Biden will not have Trump and Vance assissnated and claim immunity due to this being an act of state (protecting US from traitors or something), what was the idiots in the supreme count thinking? But he could at least expediate some of the transfer. Actually given the piss poor performance of Biden I am not sure it would be a drastic reduction of support, but something would happen. Will Europe take up the slack? I dont know, I certainly hope so. The problem are those technological items that Europe does not have. And if Trump managed to remove Russias sanctions that would boost the Russian economy. The sanctions are a garotte, but a slow one. Ok, lots of sprculation here, these are my thoughts on a topic I hope to never see realised.
"And then Trump would get distracted by something ...."
I perceive that Trump has the attention span of a toddler playing with a toy before throwing it to the floor and then moving on to something else ... such as $hitting in his own diaper? In Rex Tillerson's alleged words, Trump is a "f*cking moron." I would add a particularly dangerous one, something like a very young child playing with a loaded revolver (of course after $hitting in his diaper).
All this supposes no big support from China, with supplies of lethal weapons and munitions. For now, the Chinese seem to avoid overt support for Russia (in contrast to North Korea and Iran), but if they decide to bet on Russia things can become more nasty
China values world trade over aiding the Russians. Almost all Russian foreign trade was done with the yuan. When the US threatened the large Chinese banks with secondary sanctions they stopped trading with Russia.
Yes, I think Chine will try to prolong the war as much as it can without going to full economic war with USA and EU. And it would depend on USA and EU how far they would allow China to go. And, if they re not willing to increase support to UA, would the be willing to go to clash with China?
A fifth weekly issue! Only two left to seven, is there any differences then? Jokes, not sarcasm, aside, thanks for all of them. Good, bad, ugly…. And the history of counter battery fire as well.
Thank you Don this is an interesting article, as I understand it NATO and the US subscribe to the shot & scoot system where as the Russians don't how about the UAF?
Rapid displacement has been a practiced operational skill for decades by multiple armies, including the Soviet Union/Russia/Ukraine. One of the advantages of self-propelled artillery over towed artillery is the ability to move quicker after firing. If drones spot you moving, though, they can hit you while still moving or at the new location.
It is, but I am curious about how Fort Sill and said redlegs therein are viewing the range factors we are seeing play out. SHoot and Scoot is a key part of how the US does artillery, especially the heavy mech types. But what I am noticing is that even having a gun that can shoot just a couple of km more than your enemy is making a huge difference. We have been up against that before (Iraq used South African guns with longer ranges), but it really comes down to the training and doctrine. But why not have it all with training, doctrine AND longer ranges.
There's a lot of things have changed, which is forcing other changes.
Over time, it's become easier to detect enemy elements. The biggest factor for the recent advances has been drones. Both sides began the war with six-gun batteries to create massed fires. When the batteries were detected, all of them became targets together. Now you'll only see one gun in a position.
The other factor is range. Yes, it does help to have artillery that outranges your enemy's artillery. But the battlefield encompasses the range of all weapons, including short-ranged drones, missiles, glide bombs and long-ranged drones. Given a choice, it's better to use a few $800 rounds than a $180,000 missile, but a $500 or $10,000 drone might also be an option, depending on the situation.
What I think will happen for the US and others is that artillery pieces will be dispersed instead of in one location, and from those different locations they will still fire simulataneously on the same target for massed fires before moving to a new location. These individual guns can all fire three rounds in rapid succession with a high, medium and low trajectory so that all three rounds arrive at the same time, further increasing the weight of fire.
Of course, they'll also use drones, missiles and other weapons.
Electronic emissions are also contributing to detection. Right now, the US is working on the concept of a dispersed HQ with five nodes connected with fiber to reduce radio emissions. If one node is eliminated, the others can assume its duties.
Dispersion makes detection more difficult, plus it provides a smaller target if it is detected. But in order for dispersion to work, communication has to be enhanced.
Funny thing about what you said above. That whole concept of spreading the guns out, making them individual units instead of a platoon? That was supposed to be how we used the original M109A6 back in the 1990s. We even tried it once, but no one could quite pull the trigger on making it happen. Maybe now with real war experience showing how it can be done, will it be done.
There's a lot of advantages to having six 109's in the same spot: Easier logistics, easier communication, easier command and control. Do you have six vehicle commanders that are capable of operating independently? On the other hand, if one is detected then all are detected.
If you can eliminate your opponent's ability to detect your units then it doesn't matter if they are in one or multiple locations. Otherwise, you have to adapt to the battlefield conditions or die.
So that one attempt in the '90s, how did it work out?
It worked, but lots of changes were required to make it really work. A lot of doctrine needed to be changed and updated, how resupply would be done was a big challenge with several ideas floating around (a larger Service Battery, or having the guns show up at one spot to get stuff, or using more trucks to supply each gun, etc). Also, some retraining for section chiefs. MLRS was the model as we operated that way already. I think the biggest issue was land, spreading out your guns like that put the operating over a huge area, each gun getting a three by three km box to work on. Maneuver elements had some issues with that. Since the Cold War was over, no one felt the need to push the change.
Oh, loved this one. The artillery fight is really a fun topic. "We kill with Math!" was our FDC's motto. But I have to make a correction on this. The US Army had WAY more than just 25 battalions of FA in WWII. Each Division had at least 3 Battalions of FA, one Battalion per Infantry Regiment, plus a cannon company per each Regiment, and usually a heavy battery or 155m guns at Division level. Plus we had separate Artillery "Groups" at Corps and Army level that had numerous battalions roaming around with 155mm howitzers and guns, and some 8 inchers. What made the US FA so deadly was how the FDC system worked. Any Joe with a radio could call in for support and the FDCs could quickly determine how important it was and how much they could send on target. It was not unheard of to have a single observer controlling 4 or 5 battalions of Artillery on a single target, and since the US could mass literally every gun in range, nevermind who "owned" them, the amount of Firepower the US dropped was stunning. No pun intended. I think the record was one observer who had control of 8 battalions and two heavy batteries during the winter months, it's been a while since I read that story so I'd have to dig to find the details. I don't think you could actually mass more guns than that. I worked with the UA FA Center of Excellence when I was stationed there, and they were working out how to use the Counter-fire Radars we had given them. I can say it appears they figured it out quite well.
From about 1916-to 1990 Artillery Officers in Canada were also taught how to measure a artillery impact crater to determine approx range and bearing of the firing battery using trigonometry.
So overall, what are we to think of the progress or not of the Russian campaign
It's a war of attrition, which means both sides are trying to outlast each other. Not counting Kursk, Ukraine is slowly losing territory, but it's a big enough country that it will not lose the war because of territorial loss. It's a question of who runs out of equipment, personnel and morale first.
Russia is losing equipment at a faster rate it is producing equipment. On top of that, 2/3 of the equipment it's "producing" is refurbished equipment pulled from storage. They're quickly running out stored equipment. The attacks on the ammo depots destroyed a huge amount of ammo, but if Ukraine is able to attack the factories that produce the ammo it will have an even bigger impact on the war. And then there is the economy. Ukraine's economy would already have fallen apart without allied assistance but with it, it is stable and it's wartime production is increasing. Russia's war economy has no outside assistance and its ability to support production or sustain the civilian population will be severely compromised in about a year's time.
Manpower is Ukraine's biggest concern. War is more easily fought by young men and Ukraine doesn't have enough young men to sustain a large army over a long period of time. It also has a limited supply of middle-aged men. This, with 15% of the Ukrainian army being staffed by women. The Ukrainian army won't collapse because of a lack of manpower but the pressure on the army will increase. Ukraine should prioritize measures that reduces casualties, such as developing a culture of standardized training and digging in, plus honest reviews of operations coupled with accountability.
Russia has its own manpower concerns. The economy is suffering from low unemployment, meaning there are not enough people for all the jobs that need to be filled. Every month, Russia pulls 20-30,000 men from the workforce and sends them to the army. With each month, that issue increases the pressure on the Russian economy. On top of that, it is increasingly difficult to voluntarily attract men to the army, even though they keep increasing the signing bonus. Russia has just under four times the population of Ukraine and it is also suffering about 3-4 times the casualties as Ukraine. It does not want to conscript soldiers for combat due to the impact it has on the morale of the population, but it may not be able to avoid conscription in the future.
And then there is the will to fight. Ultimately, more than manpower and production, this is the determining factor of which side will win. If one side determines it's no longer worth the fight then the other side will win. Right now, although both sides are increasingly weary of war, neither side shows any interest in giving up on its objectives.
So the war of wills continues. Ukrainian/allied production continues to increase. Ukrainian strategic bombing, the expenditure of stored equipment and the Russian economy will decrease Russian production over time and the rate of Russian casualties will increase as a result. As time goes by, it will be harder for Russia to sustain the war effort than it will be for Ukraine.
Let's hope the leaders of all the nations supporting Ukraine are being told the same thing by their military analysts.
It all depends upon Donald Trump and the U.S. Presidential election. If Trump wins, then he will force a negotiation upon Ukraine. Putin then wins "sort of" unless the EU and NATO pick up the slack. Would the Europeans then do so?
Its obvious that Donald Trump if re-elected could hurt Ukraine quite much. It is likely he will try. But to really force it to stop he will discover that its not so easy without a lot of activity from his side. He will first have to dictate some kind of agreement. Because both sides are likely to tell him, well we would like to stop now, but those evil bastards figthing us are not stopping. And Putin, being Putin would probably try to increase or improve the deal and thus prolong everything. And then Trump would get distracted by something (Nethanayue making a golf course for him in Gaza or some such)… and the war would go. Trump doesnt have the interest or willpower to truly stop the war. But hurt Ukraine? Yes he can. He can sabotage the aid, he can make all kinds of petty small issues.I dont know exactly what (neither does he, but he has a talent for nastiness). A lot would also depend on what Biden did between November and January. We ca be sure that for good and bad Biden will not have Trump and Vance assissnated and claim immunity due to this being an act of state (protecting US from traitors or something), what was the idiots in the supreme count thinking? But he could at least expediate some of the transfer. Actually given the piss poor performance of Biden I am not sure it would be a drastic reduction of support, but something would happen. Will Europe take up the slack? I dont know, I certainly hope so. The problem are those technological items that Europe does not have. And if Trump managed to remove Russias sanctions that would boost the Russian economy. The sanctions are a garotte, but a slow one. Ok, lots of sprculation here, these are my thoughts on a topic I hope to never see realised.
"And then Trump would get distracted by something ...."
I perceive that Trump has the attention span of a toddler playing with a toy before throwing it to the floor and then moving on to something else ... such as $hitting in his own diaper? In Rex Tillerson's alleged words, Trump is a "f*cking moron." I would add a particularly dangerous one, something like a very young child playing with a loaded revolver (of course after $hitting in his diaper).
Yeah, Trump is the definition of a loose cannon. It's all about flattering and ego boosting
All this supposes no big support from China, with supplies of lethal weapons and munitions. For now, the Chinese seem to avoid overt support for Russia (in contrast to North Korea and Iran), but if they decide to bet on Russia things can become more nasty
China values world trade over aiding the Russians. Almost all Russian foreign trade was done with the yuan. When the US threatened the large Chinese banks with secondary sanctions they stopped trading with Russia.
I am reading reports of more dual use technology coming from China to Russia (especially tooling equipment, and I guess electronic parts and CPUs).
These can be a great help before start sending lethal weapons
Yes, I think Chine will try to prolong the war as much as it can without going to full economic war with USA and EU. And it would depend on USA and EU how far they would allow China to go. And, if they re not willing to increase support to UA, would the be willing to go to clash with China?
Excellent Don. Filled in blanks for me on Counter Battery radar. Very good 👍
Thank you Donald, I read your reports as soon as I see them in my inbox.
Hah, excellent short history of counter-battery fire, Don. Thanks.
ZSU is dismissing the units that developed its IT infrastructure projects https://hromadske.ua/suspilstvo/232114-u-zsu-zaiavyly-pro-zahrozu-znyshchennia-viyskovykh-it-proyektiv-cherez-rozval-pidrozdiliv-iaki-yikh-stvoriuvaly
I wonder about the logic behind such a move. Sending software developers to infantry units sounds a really bad idea to me
Bad for whom?
Their current commanders get rid of guys who always disagree and cannot be fired.
The high command gets better statistics (the assault brigades are staffed).
Here is another (individual) case, with a good discussion in the comments https://gamedev.dou.ua/forums/topic/50509/
All this presupposes that troops are interchangeable (hint: they aren't).
Moving programmers to an infantry brigade isn't the same as getting the same number of well trained conscripts.
A fifth weekly issue! Only two left to seven, is there any differences then? Jokes, not sarcasm, aside, thanks for all of them. Good, bad, ugly…. And the history of counter battery fire as well.
Thank you Don this is an interesting article, as I understand it NATO and the US subscribe to the shot & scoot system where as the Russians don't how about the UAF?
Rapid displacement has been a practiced operational skill for decades by multiple armies, including the Soviet Union/Russia/Ukraine. One of the advantages of self-propelled artillery over towed artillery is the ability to move quicker after firing. If drones spot you moving, though, they can hit you while still moving or at the new location.
It is, but I am curious about how Fort Sill and said redlegs therein are viewing the range factors we are seeing play out. SHoot and Scoot is a key part of how the US does artillery, especially the heavy mech types. But what I am noticing is that even having a gun that can shoot just a couple of km more than your enemy is making a huge difference. We have been up against that before (Iraq used South African guns with longer ranges), but it really comes down to the training and doctrine. But why not have it all with training, doctrine AND longer ranges.
There's a lot of things have changed, which is forcing other changes.
Over time, it's become easier to detect enemy elements. The biggest factor for the recent advances has been drones. Both sides began the war with six-gun batteries to create massed fires. When the batteries were detected, all of them became targets together. Now you'll only see one gun in a position.
The other factor is range. Yes, it does help to have artillery that outranges your enemy's artillery. But the battlefield encompasses the range of all weapons, including short-ranged drones, missiles, glide bombs and long-ranged drones. Given a choice, it's better to use a few $800 rounds than a $180,000 missile, but a $500 or $10,000 drone might also be an option, depending on the situation.
What I think will happen for the US and others is that artillery pieces will be dispersed instead of in one location, and from those different locations they will still fire simulataneously on the same target for massed fires before moving to a new location. These individual guns can all fire three rounds in rapid succession with a high, medium and low trajectory so that all three rounds arrive at the same time, further increasing the weight of fire.
Of course, they'll also use drones, missiles and other weapons.
Electronic emissions are also contributing to detection. Right now, the US is working on the concept of a dispersed HQ with five nodes connected with fiber to reduce radio emissions. If one node is eliminated, the others can assume its duties.
Dispersion makes detection more difficult, plus it provides a smaller target if it is detected. But in order for dispersion to work, communication has to be enhanced.
Funny thing about what you said above. That whole concept of spreading the guns out, making them individual units instead of a platoon? That was supposed to be how we used the original M109A6 back in the 1990s. We even tried it once, but no one could quite pull the trigger on making it happen. Maybe now with real war experience showing how it can be done, will it be done.
There's a lot of advantages to having six 109's in the same spot: Easier logistics, easier communication, easier command and control. Do you have six vehicle commanders that are capable of operating independently? On the other hand, if one is detected then all are detected.
If you can eliminate your opponent's ability to detect your units then it doesn't matter if they are in one or multiple locations. Otherwise, you have to adapt to the battlefield conditions or die.
So that one attempt in the '90s, how did it work out?
It worked, but lots of changes were required to make it really work. A lot of doctrine needed to be changed and updated, how resupply would be done was a big challenge with several ideas floating around (a larger Service Battery, or having the guns show up at one spot to get stuff, or using more trucks to supply each gun, etc). Also, some retraining for section chiefs. MLRS was the model as we operated that way already. I think the biggest issue was land, spreading out your guns like that put the operating over a huge area, each gun getting a three by three km box to work on. Maneuver elements had some issues with that. Since the Cold War was over, no one felt the need to push the change.
Oh, loved this one. The artillery fight is really a fun topic. "We kill with Math!" was our FDC's motto. But I have to make a correction on this. The US Army had WAY more than just 25 battalions of FA in WWII. Each Division had at least 3 Battalions of FA, one Battalion per Infantry Regiment, plus a cannon company per each Regiment, and usually a heavy battery or 155m guns at Division level. Plus we had separate Artillery "Groups" at Corps and Army level that had numerous battalions roaming around with 155mm howitzers and guns, and some 8 inchers. What made the US FA so deadly was how the FDC system worked. Any Joe with a radio could call in for support and the FDCs could quickly determine how important it was and how much they could send on target. It was not unheard of to have a single observer controlling 4 or 5 battalions of Artillery on a single target, and since the US could mass literally every gun in range, nevermind who "owned" them, the amount of Firepower the US dropped was stunning. No pun intended. I think the record was one observer who had control of 8 battalions and two heavy batteries during the winter months, it's been a while since I read that story so I'd have to dig to find the details. I don't think you could actually mass more guns than that. I worked with the UA FA Center of Excellence when I was stationed there, and they were working out how to use the Counter-fire Radars we had given them. I can say it appears they figured it out quite well.
From about 1916-to 1990 Artillery Officers in Canada were also taught how to measure a artillery impact crater to determine approx range and bearing of the firing battery using trigonometry.
Wuhledar is lost. The lock between the eastern and southern front broken.
Wuhledar is lost. The lock between the eastern and southern front broken. —- Thank you so very much for your reports.
Wuhledar is lost. The lock between the eastern and southern front broken. —- Thank you so very much for your reports.