[BostonCard]

https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.o...&cap=swipe

This makes sense.  It never made sense for the Russians to sabotage the pipeline, as their leverage came from being able to turn the tap on or off at will, and Hersch’ allegation that it was the Us made no sense either, as it risked alienating a much needed partner for little benefit; Russia’s weaponization of gas made it so that Germany would finally wean itself from Russian gas anyway.  A Ukrainian government effort was probably too risky, but Ukrainian sympathizers, which gave the Ukrainian government plausible deniability makes sense, if they have the capability.  I guess they did.

BC

[BostonCard]

https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.o...&cap=swipe

This makes sense.  It never made sense for the Russians to sabotage the pipeline, as their leverage came from being able to turn the tap on or off at will, and Hersch’ allegation that it was the Us made no sense either, as it risked alienating a much needed partner for little benefit; Russia’s weaponization of gas made it so that Germany would finally wean itself from Russian gas anyway.  A Ukrainian government effort was probably too risky, but Ukrainian sympathizers, which gave the Ukrainian government plausible deniability makes sense, if they have the capability.  I guess they did.

BC

[Nan3cy]

Verdun today.  Many of those fallen soldiers are still there.  War is stupid.

I was in Verdun many years ago, when I lived in the Rheinland Pfalz for a year. One of the most moving visits we made during that year.

[Nan3cy]

Verdun today.  Many of those fallen soldiers are still there.  War is stupid.

I was in Verdun many years ago, when I lived in the Rheinland Pfalz for a year. One of the most moving visits we made during that year.

[Goose]

https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.o...&cap=swipe

This makes sense.  It never made sense for the Russians to sabotage the pipeline, as their leverage came from being able to turn the tap on or off at will, and Hersch’ allegation that it was the Us made no sense either, as it risked alienating a much needed partner for little benefit; Russia’s weaponization of gas made it so that Germany would finally wean itself from Russian gas anyway.  A Ukrainian government effort was probably too risky, but Ukrainian sympathizers, which gave the Ukrainian government plausible deniability makes sense, if they have the capability.  I guess they did.

BC

As I pointed out in my post of Oct 22 (https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...71&page=98), any competent underwater construction company has the capability.  Ukraine always was the "most probable" actor, although unless and until we can have an exact money trail, we won't actually know. The opportunities for a "false flag" operation here are just too great to assume the people who "did the work" actually knew who was sponsoring the activity. Some guy with lots of cash undoubtedly would be the true answer. If it was the Ukrainian government, they probably have the capability to make that money trail almost impossible to follow. Other actors maybe are not so careful. Without the money trail, we really won't ever know who actually "did it". It might even be Ukrainian sympathizers who thought they were acting at the behest of the Ukrainian government but in fact were not.

[Goose]

https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.o...&cap=swipe

This makes sense.  It never made sense for the Russians to sabotage the pipeline, as their leverage came from being able to turn the tap on or off at will, and Hersch’ allegation that it was the Us made no sense either, as it risked alienating a much needed partner for little benefit; Russia’s weaponization of gas made it so that Germany would finally wean itself from Russian gas anyway.  A Ukrainian government effort was probably too risky, but Ukrainian sympathizers, which gave the Ukrainian government plausible deniability makes sense, if they have the capability.  I guess they did.

BC

As I pointed out in my post of Oct 22 (https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...71&page=98), any competent underwater construction company has the capability.  Ukraine always was the "most probable" actor, although unless and until we can have an exact money trail, we won't actually know. The opportunities for a "false flag" operation here are just too great to assume the people who "did the work" actually knew who was sponsoring the activity. Some guy with lots of cash undoubtedly would be the true answer. If it was the Ukrainian government, they probably have the capability to make that money trail almost impossible to follow. Other actors maybe are not so careful. Without the money trail, we really won't ever know who actually "did it". It might even be Ukrainian sympathizers who thought they were acting at the behest of the Ukrainian government but in fact were not.

[81alum]

https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.o...&cap=swipe

This makes sense.  It never made sense for the Russians to sabotage the pipeline, as their leverage came from being able to turn the tap on or off at will, and Hersch’ allegation that it was the Us made no sense either, as it risked alienating a much needed partner for little benefit; Russia’s weaponization of gas made it so that Germany would finally wean itself from Russian gas anyway.  A Ukrainian government effort was probably too risky, but Ukrainian sympathizers, which gave the Ukrainian government plausible deniability makes sense, if they have the capability.  I guess they did.

BC

As I pointed out in my post of Oct 22 (https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...71&page=98), any competent underwater construction company has the capability.  Ukraine always was the "most probable" actor, although unless and until we can have an exact money trail, we won't actually know. The opportunities for a "false flag" operation here are just too great to assume the people who "did the work" actually knew who was sponsoring the activity. Some guy with lots of cash undoubtedly would be the true answer. If it was the Ukrainian government, they probably have the capability to make that money trail almost impossible to follow. Other actors maybe are not so careful. Without the money trail, we really won't ever know who actually "did it". It might even be Ukrainian sympathizers who thought they were acting at the behest of the Ukrainian government but in fact were not.

If it takes so little to sabotage that pipeline--not even the backing of a nation state was needed--it raises the question as to how much of the world's infrastructure is so terribly vulnerable to saboteurs.  We did suffer the cyber attack on the Colonial pipeline a few years ago.  So while there was a lot of attention paid to "hardening our infrastructure" after 9/11, our vulnerabilities are in plain view.

[81alum]

https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.o...&cap=swipe

This makes sense.  It never made sense for the Russians to sabotage the pipeline, as their leverage came from being able to turn the tap on or off at will, and Hersch’ allegation that it was the Us made no sense either, as it risked alienating a much needed partner for little benefit; Russia’s weaponization of gas made it so that Germany would finally wean itself from Russian gas anyway.  A Ukrainian government effort was probably too risky, but Ukrainian sympathizers, which gave the Ukrainian government plausible deniability makes sense, if they have the capability.  I guess they did.

BC

As I pointed out in my post of Oct 22 (https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...71&page=98), any competent underwater construction company has the capability.  Ukraine always was the "most probable" actor, although unless and until we can have an exact money trail, we won't actually know. The opportunities for a "false flag" operation here are just too great to assume the people who "did the work" actually knew who was sponsoring the activity. Some guy with lots of cash undoubtedly would be the true answer. If it was the Ukrainian government, they probably have the capability to make that money trail almost impossible to follow. Other actors maybe are not so careful. Without the money trail, we really won't ever know who actually "did it". It might even be Ukrainian sympathizers who thought they were acting at the behest of the Ukrainian government but in fact were not.

If it takes so little to sabotage that pipeline--not even the backing of a nation state was needed--it raises the question as to how much of the world's infrastructure is so terribly vulnerable to saboteurs.  We did suffer the cyber attack on the Colonial pipeline a few years ago.  So while there was a lot of attention paid to "hardening our infrastructure" after 9/11, our vulnerabilities are in plain view.

[fullmetal]

Ditto with the domestic terrorists shooting up electrical substations all around the US recently.

[fullmetal]

Ditto with the domestic terrorists shooting up electrical substations all around the US recently.

[Mick]

If it takes so little to sabotage that pipeline--not even the backing of a nation state was needed--it raises the question as to how much of the world's infrastructure is so terribly vulnerable to saboteurs.  We did suffer the cyber attack on the Colonial pipeline a few years ago.  So while there was a lot of attention paid to "hardening our infrastructure" after 9/11, our vulnerabilities are in plain view.

We've had a lot of attacks recently, and more likely to come:

Physical attacks on power grid surge to new peak - POLITICO

Attackers Keep Targeting the US Electric Grid | WIRED

3 Alarming Threats To The U.S. Energy Grid – Cyber, Physical, And Existential Events (forbes.com)

[Mick]

If it takes so little to sabotage that pipeline--not even the backing of a nation state was needed--it raises the question as to how much of the world's infrastructure is so terribly vulnerable to saboteurs.  We did suffer the cyber attack on the Colonial pipeline a few years ago.  So while there was a lot of attention paid to "hardening our infrastructure" after 9/11, our vulnerabilities are in plain view.

We've had a lot of attacks recently, and more likely to come:

Physical attacks on power grid surge to new peak - POLITICO

Attackers Keep Targeting the US Electric Grid | WIRED

3 Alarming Threats To The U.S. Energy Grid – Cyber, Physical, And Existential Events (forbes.com)

[Goose]

Touche.  When I said 1914 I was thinking of the Schlieffen Plan by Germany to invade France and completely neglected to think about the other front--which of course would logically have been the implied analogy given that it was Russia.  So of course you are correct if thinking of the east.

OK, understand your thinking here.

What I was trying to say is that in 1914 the Germans did reasonably well with the Schileffen Plan until Allied resistence coalesced, but even then Germany held onto most of its territorial gains.  Both in 1914 and in 2022 the attacker failed to deliver the knockout blow that they expected and hoped for.  In both 1914 and 2022 the war of movement rapidly dissipated into static lines.  However, in Ukraine 2022 the attacker got rolled back and defeated in several key battles for strategically important positions: Kiev, Kharkiv, Kherson.  I guess the battle of the Marne was somewhat analogous to the Ukrainian defeat of the forces advancing on Kiev in that it assured at least a stalemate for the foreseeable future.  But if I had to say whether Germany in 1914 accomplished more of its aims than Russia in 2022, I would say both flopped, but 1914 Germany was better off 2022 Russia.  And 1914 Germany did not exactly have great prospects--it took years, but there eventually was a coup and defeat and a revolution and a transition to democracy.  (Short lived though it was.)

I don't think any of us know how the current war will turn out, but I am inclined to think that Russia's failure to knock out Ukraine rapidly at the start of the war will wind up, sooner or later, leading to the same effect that Germany's failure to knock out France led to.  By this logic the outcome was determined early on, but it may take years for both sides to realize it.

The German leadership absolutely did know the outcome was determined early on. Moltke the Younger went to the Kaiser after the battle of the Marne and told him in so many words "We have lost the war". The similarities between Germany in WW I and Russia in 2022 are quite misleading. Germany was more in the position Ukraine is today. This is actually IMO an important issue to consider whenever looking at the war in Ukraine.

In 1914, Germany was fighting two peer competitors, Russia and France. Either one alone has a reasonable chance to defeat Germany. Combined, Germany had little chance. France had spent the preceding 40+ years preparing to do to Germany what Germany did to France in 1870. France was going to take back Alsace and Lorraine. If at all possible, they would destroy the German Empire, leaving only weak, small states like in the early 1800s. France was not going to "just quit", no matter what.

There were actually two Schileffen Plans, one to fight France alone, and another to fight France and Russia together. Germany could execute neither plan, because both were based on an army larger than Germany actually had. There were also political problems in that the 80-20 split of forces proposed in the two front scenario would involve losing East Prussia, at least temporarily. That wasn't politically acceptable. As a result, Moltke had to adopt a risky hybrid where he had to defeat France very quickly and knock them out of the war. Occupying French territory didn't matter. He had to force a capitulation. We could go into what happened and why, but it didn't really matter. France didn't capitulate. Game over. The General Staff had wargamed it to death from about 1880 on. Germany would eventually lose if both France and Russia kept fighting.

In war, nothing is certain, so the Kaiser brought in von Falkenhayn to "play out the hand, hoping the opponent makes a mistake". The British and French did indeed make mistakes, as did the Germans. However, it wasn't enough. Unpredictable events tipped the war toward Germany with the Russian revolution took Russia out of the war, but the US entry into the war canceled this out. It went as predicted.

Ukraine is fighting a nation that has many times Ukraine's military potential. Ukraine is incapable of invading Russia. Russia can end this war just by pulling back to the pre-2014 boundaries. Ukraine has to keep fighting as long as Russia does. I really like a quote from this article:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/putin...00470.html

One should also note that Russia doesn’t need to fear running out of shells the way the Ukrainians do. If Ukraine runs out of shells it will cease to exist as a nation: if Russia does, it will only have to withdraw from Ukraine.

For that reason, Germany was much worse off throughout WW I than Russia could ever be today.

[Goose]

Touche.  When I said 1914 I was thinking of the Schlieffen Plan by Germany to invade France and completely neglected to think about the other front--which of course would logically have been the implied analogy given that it was Russia.  So of course you are correct if thinking of the east.

OK, understand your thinking here.

What I was trying to say is that in 1914 the Germans did reasonably well with the Schileffen Plan until Allied resistence coalesced, but even then Germany held onto most of its territorial gains.  Both in 1914 and in 2022 the attacker failed to deliver the knockout blow that they expected and hoped for.  In both 1914 and 2022 the war of movement rapidly dissipated into static lines.  However, in Ukraine 2022 the attacker got rolled back and defeated in several key battles for strategically important positions: Kiev, Kharkiv, Kherson.  I guess the battle of the Marne was somewhat analogous to the Ukrainian defeat of the forces advancing on Kiev in that it assured at least a stalemate for the foreseeable future.  But if I had to say whether Germany in 1914 accomplished more of its aims than Russia in 2022, I would say both flopped, but 1914 Germany was better off 2022 Russia.  And 1914 Germany did not exactly have great prospects--it took years, but there eventually was a coup and defeat and a revolution and a transition to democracy.  (Short lived though it was.)

I don't think any of us know how the current war will turn out, but I am inclined to think that Russia's failure to knock out Ukraine rapidly at the start of the war will wind up, sooner or later, leading to the same effect that Germany's failure to knock out France led to.  By this logic the outcome was determined early on, but it may take years for both sides to realize it.

The German leadership absolutely did know the outcome was determined early on. Moltke the Younger went to the Kaiser after the battle of the Marne and told him in so many words "We have lost the war". The similarities between Germany in WW I and Russia in 2022 are quite misleading. Germany was more in the position Ukraine is today. This is actually IMO an important issue to consider whenever looking at the war in Ukraine.

In 1914, Germany was fighting two peer competitors, Russia and France. Either one alone has a reasonable chance to defeat Germany. Combined, Germany had little chance. France had spent the preceding 40+ years preparing to do to Germany what Germany did to France in 1870. France was going to take back Alsace and Lorraine. If at all possible, they would destroy the German Empire, leaving only weak, small states like in the early 1800s. France was not going to "just quit", no matter what.

There were actually two Schileffen Plans, one to fight France alone, and another to fight France and Russia together. Germany could execute neither plan, because both were based on an army larger than Germany actually had. There were also political problems in that the 80-20 split of forces proposed in the two front scenario would involve losing East Prussia, at least temporarily. That wasn't politically acceptable. As a result, Moltke had to adopt a risky hybrid where he had to defeat France very quickly and knock them out of the war. Occupying French territory didn't matter. He had to force a capitulation. We could go into what happened and why, but it didn't really matter. France didn't capitulate. Game over. The General Staff had wargamed it to death from about 1880 on. Germany would eventually lose if both France and Russia kept fighting.

In war, nothing is certain, so the Kaiser brought in von Falkenhayn to "play out the hand, hoping the opponent makes a mistake". The British and French did indeed make mistakes, as did the Germans. However, it wasn't enough. Unpredictable events tipped the war toward Germany with the Russian revolution took Russia out of the war, but the US entry into the war canceled this out. It went as predicted.

Ukraine is fighting a nation that has many times Ukraine's military potential. Ukraine is incapable of invading Russia. Russia can end this war just by pulling back to the pre-2014 boundaries. Ukraine has to keep fighting as long as Russia does. I really like a quote from this article:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/putin...00470.html

One should also note that Russia doesn’t need to fear running out of shells the way the Ukrainians do. If Ukraine runs out of shells it will cease to exist as a nation: if Russia does, it will only have to withdraw from Ukraine.

For that reason, Germany was much worse off throughout WW I than Russia could ever be today.

[gocard14]

Interesting thread I read on the bird about how Ukraine is limiting use of 155 and 152 and 122mm shells in Bakhmut to preserve it for an offensive while substituting extensive use of 120mm Mortars. This they apparently have in relative abundance with ammunition sourced from around the world including Pakistan and Iran. The reduced range is probably less of a factor due to the close up nature of the fight in Bakhmut. 

https://twitter.com/trenttelenko/status/...CCZ3SP6dPw

[gocard14]

Interesting thread I read on the bird about how Ukraine is limiting use of 155 and 152 and 122mm shells in Bakhmut to preserve it for an offensive while substituting extensive use of 120mm Mortars. This they apparently have in relative abundance with ammunition sourced from around the world including Pakistan and Iran. The reduced range is probably less of a factor due to the close up nature of the fight in Bakhmut. 

https://twitter.com/trenttelenko/status/...CCZ3SP6dPw

[Goose]

Interesting thread I read on the bird about how Ukraine is limiting use of 155 and 152 and 122mm shells in Bakhmut to preserve it for an offensive while substituting extensive use of 120mm Mortars. This they apparently have in relative abundance with ammunition sourced from around the world including Pakistan and Iran. The reduced range is probably less of a factor due to the close up nature of the fight in Bakhmut. 

https://twitter.com/trenttelenko/status/...CCZ3SP6dPw

There are additional good reasons to use mortars. When firing on entrenched troops, an almost perpendicular angle at the point of impact is desirable. Howitzers obviously can achieve this, but only in so far as their maximum elevation allows. They can only fire at extremely high angles if they are close to the front, which endangers the howitzer itself. Mortars OTOH can be fired at high elevation angles close to the front without risking a much more valuable asset. Mortars also require a smaller crew and are inherently much "simpler" than a rifled howitzer. They are basically just a strong metal pipe. Ukraine undoubtedly has many more of them and can sustain a high rate of fire much more easily.

[Goose]

Interesting thread I read on the bird about how Ukraine is limiting use of 155 and 152 and 122mm shells in Bakhmut to preserve it for an offensive while substituting extensive use of 120mm Mortars. This they apparently have in relative abundance with ammunition sourced from around the world including Pakistan and Iran. The reduced range is probably less of a factor due to the close up nature of the fight in Bakhmut. 

https://twitter.com/trenttelenko/status/...CCZ3SP6dPw

There are additional good reasons to use mortars. When firing on entrenched troops, an almost perpendicular angle at the point of impact is desirable. Howitzers obviously can achieve this, but only in so far as their maximum elevation allows. They can only fire at extremely high angles if they are close to the front, which endangers the howitzer itself. Mortars OTOH can be fired at high elevation angles close to the front without risking a much more valuable asset. Mortars also require a smaller crew and are inherently much "simpler" than a rifled howitzer. They are basically just a strong metal pipe. Ukraine undoubtedly has many more of them and can sustain a high rate of fire much more easily.

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/Teoyaomiquu/status/1634607118287347712?s=20[/tweet]

This is near Svatove I think. Impressive accuracy by Ukrainian artillery.

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/Teoyaomiquu/status/1634607118287347712?s=20[/tweet]

This is near Svatove I think. Impressive accuracy by Ukrainian artillery.

[Treefence]

Interesting thread I read on the bird about how Ukraine is limiting use of 155 and 152 and 122mm shells in Bakhmut to preserve it for an offensive while substituting extensive use of 120mm Mortars. This they apparently have in relative abundance with ammunition sourced from around the world including Pakistan and Iran. The reduced range is probably less of a factor due to the close up nature of the fight in Bakhmut. 

https://twitter.com/trenttelenko/status/...CCZ3SP6dPw

There are additional good reasons to use mortars. When firing on entrenched troops, an almost perpendicular angle at the point of impact is desirable. Howitzers obviously can achieve this, but only in so far as their maximum elevation allows. They can only fire at extremely high angles if they are close to the front, which endangers the howitzer itself. Mortars OTOH can be fired at high elevation angles close to the front without risking a much more valuable asset. Mortars also require a smaller crew and are inherently much "simpler" than a rifled howitzer. They are basically just a strong metal pipe. Ukraine undoubtedly has many more of them and can sustain a high rate of fire much more easily.

That all makes a lot of sense.  From what I've heard, Wagner are known, and specialize, in using mortar strikes in their combat operations.  It would make a lot of sense to fight fire with fire, as I'm guessing Ukraine knows the risk of putting too many valuable assets in the potential cauldron of death that is Bakhmut.  I'm starting to see a lot of Ukrainian bloggers starting to really question the Ukrainian leadership, specifically Syrsky, when it comes to the decisions being made in this area.  To be fair, most of these bloggers assumed the city would fall over a week ago, but at the same time I hope Ukraine is being efficient with their decisions and not prideful.

[Treefence]

Interesting thread I read on the bird about how Ukraine is limiting use of 155 and 152 and 122mm shells in Bakhmut to preserve it for an offensive while substituting extensive use of 120mm Mortars. This they apparently have in relative abundance with ammunition sourced from around the world including Pakistan and Iran. The reduced range is probably less of a factor due to the close up nature of the fight in Bakhmut. 

https://twitter.com/trenttelenko/status/...CCZ3SP6dPw

There are additional good reasons to use mortars. When firing on entrenched troops, an almost perpendicular angle at the point of impact is desirable. Howitzers obviously can achieve this, but only in so far as their maximum elevation allows. They can only fire at extremely high angles if they are close to the front, which endangers the howitzer itself. Mortars OTOH can be fired at high elevation angles close to the front without risking a much more valuable asset. Mortars also require a smaller crew and are inherently much "simpler" than a rifled howitzer. They are basically just a strong metal pipe. Ukraine undoubtedly has many more of them and can sustain a high rate of fire much more easily.

That all makes a lot of sense.  From what I've heard, Wagner are known, and specialize, in using mortar strikes in their combat operations.  It would make a lot of sense to fight fire with fire, as I'm guessing Ukraine knows the risk of putting too many valuable assets in the potential cauldron of death that is Bakhmut.  I'm starting to see a lot of Ukrainian bloggers starting to really question the Ukrainian leadership, specifically Syrsky, when it comes to the decisions being made in this area.  To be fair, most of these bloggers assumed the city would fall over a week ago, but at the same time I hope Ukraine is being efficient with their decisions and not prideful.

[M T]

This is near Svatove I think. Impressive accuracy by Ukrainian artillery.

The video needs an advisory. Ouch. 
I wouldn’t want to play tag against that artillery.

[M T]

This is near Svatove I think. Impressive accuracy by Ukrainian artillery.

The video needs an advisory. Ouch. 
I wouldn’t want to play tag against that artillery.

[OutsiderFan]

This is near Svatove I think. Impressive accuracy by Ukrainian artillery.

The video needs an advisory. Ouch. 
I wouldn’t want to play tag against that artillery.

Or to have pulled the shortest of straws and been forced to follow orders from a Russian military that has zero value for the lives of those who fight for it.

[OutsiderFan]

This is near Svatove I think. Impressive accuracy by Ukrainian artillery.

The video needs an advisory. Ouch. 
I wouldn’t want to play tag against that artillery.

Or to have pulled the shortest of straws and been forced to follow orders from a Russian military that has zero value for the lives of those who fight for it.

[GK3]

This is near Svatove I think. Impressive accuracy by Ukrainian artillery.

The video needs an advisory. Ouch. 
I wouldn’t want to play tag against that artillery.

Or to have pulled the shortest of straws and been forced to follow orders from a Russian military that has zero value for the lives of those who fight for it.

I wonder if Ukraine has any precision guided mortars like we used in the Middle East.  I think they were 120 mm.

[GK3]

This is near Svatove I think. Impressive accuracy by Ukrainian artillery.

The video needs an advisory. Ouch. 
I wouldn’t want to play tag against that artillery.

Or to have pulled the shortest of straws and been forced to follow orders from a Russian military that has zero value for the lives of those who fight for it.

I wonder if Ukraine has any precision guided mortars like we used in the Middle East.  I think they were 120 mm.

[Goose]

I wonder if Ukraine has any precision guided mortars like we used in the Middle East.  I think they were 120 mm.

I don't know, but I doubt it. This is a bit dated, but you are correct about the 120mm mortar shells with "precision" guidance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM395_Prec...r_Munition

We didn't buy that many of them, and the Army started a program for an "improved" system that has a 1 meter CEP. Where that program went is unclear to me ATM. Elbit builds such a round. The US has evaluated and tested it, but how many they bought and how many have been delivered is unclear to me. I think the 120mm round kind of fell off the priority list. This is at least partially due to the "winner" being an Israeli company. Too bad, as it is now clear that having such a thing available in quantity is a "good idea".

[Goose]

I wonder if Ukraine has any precision guided mortars like we used in the Middle East.  I think they were 120 mm.

I don't know, but I doubt it. This is a bit dated, but you are correct about the 120mm mortar shells with "precision" guidance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM395_Prec...r_Munition

We didn't buy that many of them, and the Army started a program for an "improved" system that has a 1 meter CEP. Where that program went is unclear to me ATM. Elbit builds such a round. The US has evaluated and tested it, but how many they bought and how many have been delivered is unclear to me. I think the 120mm round kind of fell off the priority list. This is at least partially due to the "winner" being an Israeli company. Too bad, as it is now clear that having such a thing available in quantity is a "good idea".

[gocard14]

Reporting that over half of Russian artillery systems are inoperable from use/destruction.
 
https://twitter.com/secretsqrl123/status...CCZ3SP6dPw

We may be seeing an interesting dynamic where Russia is becoming more and more reliant on manpower due to lack of materiel, while Ukraines shifts (partially due to lack of manpower reserves) towards a smaller, higher tech and more mobile force.

[gocard14]

Reporting that over half of Russian artillery systems are inoperable from use/destruction.
 
https://twitter.com/secretsqrl123/status...CCZ3SP6dPw

We may be seeing an interesting dynamic where Russia is becoming more and more reliant on manpower due to lack of materiel, while Ukraines shifts (partially due to lack of manpower reserves) towards a smaller, higher tech and more mobile force.

[BostonCard]

Sounds like the time has come to call it in Bakhmut and evacuate.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1634907669294112769?s=61&t=uOULmTXhVLkcXRmnxXcClQ[/tweet]

BC

[BostonCard]

Sounds like the time has come to call it in Bakhmut and evacuate.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1634907669294112769?s=61&t=uOULmTXhVLkcXRmnxXcClQ[/tweet]

BC

[gocard14]

Sounds like the time has come to call it in Bakhmut and evacuate.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1634907669294112769?s=61&t=uOULmTXhVLkcXRmnxXcClQ[/tweet]

BC

Different sources saying a lot of different things, hard to get straight info. This could well be true, but I would think/hope Ukrainian brass would be on top of the situation. 

I also wonder how much depends on where info is coming from. I have no doubt that if you’re on the front line in Bakhmut for Ukraine it is absolutely brutal. Even with a 5:1 casualty ratio that could mean 100-200 friendly casualties a day. That is horrific attrition when it’s your unit and your friends. You may not be seeing the full extent of enemy casualties but you are seeing your casualties. But the big picture data may support staying. Who knows? We can only hope they’re on top of it and making the right calls.

[gocard14]

Sounds like the time has come to call it in Bakhmut and evacuate.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1634907669294112769?s=61&t=uOULmTXhVLkcXRmnxXcClQ[/tweet]

BC

Different sources saying a lot of different things, hard to get straight info. This could well be true, but I would think/hope Ukrainian brass would be on top of the situation. 

I also wonder how much depends on where info is coming from. I have no doubt that if you’re on the front line in Bakhmut for Ukraine it is absolutely brutal. Even with a 5:1 casualty ratio that could mean 100-200 friendly casualties a day. That is horrific attrition when it’s your unit and your friends. You may not be seeing the full extent of enemy casualties but you are seeing your casualties. But the big picture data may support staying. Who knows? We can only hope they’re on top of it and making the right calls.

[Goose]

Different sources saying a lot of different things, hard to get straight info. This could well be true, but I would think/hope Ukrainian brass would be on top of the situation. 

I also wonder how much depends on where info is coming from. I have no doubt that if you’re on the front line in Bakhmut for Ukraine it is absolutely brutal. Even with a 5:1 casualty ratio that could mean 100-200 friendly casualties a day. That is horrific attrition when it’s your unit and your friends. You may not be seeing the full extent of enemy casualties but you are seeing your casualties. But the big picture data may support staying. Who knows? We can only hope they’re on top of it and making the right calls.

Exactly so. The "fog of war" is real, and there is always the question of "if not this, then what?". Sometimes all the options are bad and you pick what you believe to be the least bad.

[Goose]

Different sources saying a lot of different things, hard to get straight info. This could well be true, but I would think/hope Ukrainian brass would be on top of the situation. 

I also wonder how much depends on where info is coming from. I have no doubt that if you’re on the front line in Bakhmut for Ukraine it is absolutely brutal. Even with a 5:1 casualty ratio that could mean 100-200 friendly casualties a day. That is horrific attrition when it’s your unit and your friends. You may not be seeing the full extent of enemy casualties but you are seeing your casualties. But the big picture data may support staying. Who knows? We can only hope they’re on top of it and making the right calls.

Exactly so. The "fog of war" is real, and there is always the question of "if not this, then what?". Sometimes all the options are bad and you pick what you believe to be the least bad.

[GK3]

I wonder if Ukraine has any precision guided mortars like we used in the Middle East.  I think they were 120 mm.

I don't know, but I doubt it. This is a bit dated, but you are correct about the 120mm mortar shells with "precision" guidance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM395_Prec...r_Munition

We didn't buy that many of them, and the Army started a program for an "improved" system that has a 1 meter CEP. Where that program went is unclear to me ATM. Elbit builds such a round. The US has evaluated and tested it, but how many they bought and how many have been delivered is unclear to me. I think the 120mm round kind of fell off the priority list. This is at least partially due to the "winner" being an Israeli company. Too bad, as it is now clear that having such a thing available in quantity is a "good idea".

I recall reading that the 1 meter CEP round is laser guided, as opposed to GPS and is more immune to jamming.  Hard to think of a CEP of 1 meter with a mortar.

[GK3]

I wonder if Ukraine has any precision guided mortars like we used in the Middle East.  I think they were 120 mm.

I don't know, but I doubt it. This is a bit dated, but you are correct about the 120mm mortar shells with "precision" guidance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM395_Prec...r_Munition

We didn't buy that many of them, and the Army started a program for an "improved" system that has a 1 meter CEP. Where that program went is unclear to me ATM. Elbit builds such a round. The US has evaluated and tested it, but how many they bought and how many have been delivered is unclear to me. I think the 120mm round kind of fell off the priority list. This is at least partially due to the "winner" being an Israeli company. Too bad, as it is now clear that having such a thing available in quantity is a "good idea".

I recall reading that the 1 meter CEP round is laser guided, as opposed to GPS and is more immune to jamming.  Hard to think of a CEP of 1 meter with a mortar.