[Goose]

On the cluster de-mining use, I've heard some people claim they can help, but not ideal nor would the efficacy rate be great. But, in combination with drones that can identify them, having a crude method to saturate a path known to be mined, with bomblets, might be better than nothing in terms of allowing a faster advance.

Could be, but I expect the DPICM would be preferentially used to keep the Russian defense off the mine clearance folks. Mines can be lifted quite quickly if you have the right equipment and the enemy can't interfere. DPICM can keep the Russian infantry/IFVs fixed in place and unable to shoot back much. That is a big win especially if you have mine plows available. If the minefield is shallow enough (extent, not mine burial depth), you can make an initial breach with line charges and create a security zone for further engineering work. I doubt the Russians skimped on depth though :-).

Again, really would be nice if Ukraine could get some forces behind Russian fortifications and attack from the rear where the mine concern won't be as great. What good are tanks, AFVs, and IFVs if you can't really use them in a frontal assault due to so many mines?

Not much, as Ukraine has demonstrated. The main purpose of mines is delay, not destruction. Of course, any destruction is "nice", but mines can be lifted. The goal is to make that process so slow and so expensive the troops waiting behind the clearance operation can be targeted and rendered ineffective. More importantly, it also creates time to reinforce the defenses in the region of the prospective breach.

Airborne troops were at one time expected to do what you suggest, get behind the minefields, cut off reinforcements/resupply and at least pin down the opposite sides troops so that the minefields could be breached. It never worked. Helicopter troops ditto. You just can't airlift a strong enough force to do the job and too many things can go wrong with the lift, especially if you don't have air supremacy :-).

What needs to happen, and what Ukraine is trying to do, is identify a place where the minefields can be quickly breached and a very mobile combined arms striking force can pour through. They then have a strong force that can powerfully strike the rear of the line of fortifications and create a much wider breach. To do that successfully, Ukraine must ensure there is no Russian Quick Reaction force that can move freely to "plug the hole". Ukraine is trying to ensure all Russian assets are fully committed so no QRF can exist.

To counter that, Russia has often installed a second line of fortifications immediately to the rear of the first. These fortifications are supposed to engage the breakthrough force and cripple it. The Ukrainians are counting on the fact Russia doesn't have enough troops to man two lines of fortifications all across Ukraine. They are probably correct in that assessment, at least for now. They do however need to find the "right spot", and so far, they haven't.

---

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-force...03535.html

There are several articles reflecting this trend. Let's hope it is real. Ukraine has not done a great job of counter-battery during this war so far IMO. If that is changing, it is a big win, because without artillery superiority, Russia has a really big problem :-). The Ukrainian actions are partly due to the fact the Soviet doctrine didn't rely on counter-battery extensively as it was assumed the numerical superiority was so great it didn't matter. NATO however did depend on it to mitigate the Soviet numbers.

Interestingly, the Soviets did have a rather complete (and numerically large) counter-battery radar capability. What they didn't have was the organization to quickly locate NATO batteries and get the datum to a battery that would fire the mission. It was a reporting chain that crossed too many boundaries and was therefore slow. These counter-battery radars were also not automated, so the Soviets needed troops who were pretty well trained to operate them. They were also very easy to detect and target.

Russia today undoubtedly has a lot of the "old" systems that would work just fine, but they don't have the trained operators. Instead they rely on the much more sophisticated (and automated, and MUCH larger) Zoopark systems, of which they don't have many. These things are just sitting there screaming "kill me" all day long. Why any still exist is hard for me to explain. Ukraine must not have the necessary systems to target and hit them. Ditto GPS jammers. Ukraine has destroyed some of them. In any case, the Russians still don't have the necessary structure to get the info to the guns. The unfortunate fact is that shortcoming is correctable, and given enough time, even the Russians will correct it. Ukraine needs to "win" before they do, or else things will get lots harder.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-bides...02604.html
Along similar lines.

[Goose]

On the cluster de-mining use, I've heard some people claim they can help, but not ideal nor would the efficacy rate be great. But, in combination with drones that can identify them, having a crude method to saturate a path known to be mined, with bomblets, might be better than nothing in terms of allowing a faster advance.

Could be, but I expect the DPICM would be preferentially used to keep the Russian defense off the mine clearance folks. Mines can be lifted quite quickly if you have the right equipment and the enemy can't interfere. DPICM can keep the Russian infantry/IFVs fixed in place and unable to shoot back much. That is a big win especially if you have mine plows available. If the minefield is shallow enough (extent, not mine burial depth), you can make an initial breach with line charges and create a security zone for further engineering work. I doubt the Russians skimped on depth though :-).

Again, really would be nice if Ukraine could get some forces behind Russian fortifications and attack from the rear where the mine concern won't be as great. What good are tanks, AFVs, and IFVs if you can't really use them in a frontal assault due to so many mines?

Not much, as Ukraine has demonstrated. The main purpose of mines is delay, not destruction. Of course, any destruction is "nice", but mines can be lifted. The goal is to make that process so slow and so expensive the troops waiting behind the clearance operation can be targeted and rendered ineffective. More importantly, it also creates time to reinforce the defenses in the region of the prospective breach.

Airborne troops were at one time expected to do what you suggest, get behind the minefields, cut off reinforcements/resupply and at least pin down the opposite sides troops so that the minefields could be breached. It never worked. Helicopter troops ditto. You just can't airlift a strong enough force to do the job and too many things can go wrong with the lift, especially if you don't have air supremacy :-).

What needs to happen, and what Ukraine is trying to do, is identify a place where the minefields can be quickly breached and a very mobile combined arms striking force can pour through. They then have a strong force that can powerfully strike the rear of the line of fortifications and create a much wider breach. To do that successfully, Ukraine must ensure there is no Russian Quick Reaction force that can move freely to "plug the hole". Ukraine is trying to ensure all Russian assets are fully committed so no QRF can exist.

To counter that, Russia has often installed a second line of fortifications immediately to the rear of the first. These fortifications are supposed to engage the breakthrough force and cripple it. The Ukrainians are counting on the fact Russia doesn't have enough troops to man two lines of fortifications all across Ukraine. They are probably correct in that assessment, at least for now. They do however need to find the "right spot", and so far, they haven't.

---

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-force...03535.html

There are several articles reflecting this trend. Let's hope it is real. Ukraine has not done a great job of counter-battery during this war so far IMO. If that is changing, it is a big win, because without artillery superiority, Russia has a really big problem :-). The Ukrainian actions are partly due to the fact the Soviet doctrine didn't rely on counter-battery extensively as it was assumed the numerical superiority was so great it didn't matter. NATO however did depend on it to mitigate the Soviet numbers.

Interestingly, the Soviets did have a rather complete (and numerically large) counter-battery radar capability. What they didn't have was the organization to quickly locate NATO batteries and get the datum to a battery that would fire the mission. It was a reporting chain that crossed too many boundaries and was therefore slow. These counter-battery radars were also not automated, so the Soviets needed troops who were pretty well trained to operate them. They were also very easy to detect and target.

Russia today undoubtedly has a lot of the "old" systems that would work just fine, but they don't have the trained operators. Instead they rely on the much more sophisticated (and automated, and MUCH larger) Zoopark systems, of which they don't have many. These things are just sitting there screaming "kill me" all day long. Why any still exist is hard for me to explain. Ukraine must not have the necessary systems to target and hit them. Ditto GPS jammers. Ukraine has destroyed some of them. In any case, the Russians still don't have the necessary structure to get the info to the guns. The unfortunate fact is that shortcoming is correctable, and given enough time, even the Russians will correct it. Ukraine needs to "win" before they do, or else things will get lots harder.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-bides...02604.html
Along similar lines.