Well the Ukrainians learned from the US and the US has always been good at keeping this sort of thing well controlled.

That said they also seem to be just generally good at social media stuff. They’re also not unwilling conscripts in a foreign country getting killed. So while you might have the occasional leak of something bad on their end, they’re far more united and the likelihood of posting stuff that hurts morale online is a lot lower. If the war support in Ukraine dies, they die. If the war support in Russia dies, those guys get to go home.

Lots of countries have learned from the US and still done a poor job implementing or following through. Ukrainians clearly have taken this stuff incredibly seriously since 2014 and the transformation of their military has really been something.

An actual existential crisis does wonders to focus the mind apparently. The USA has, really, never been under thread of being defeated, occupied, and destroyed (other than the generalized nuclear threat everyone was/is under I suppose). Except for the Confederacy, we’ve always had wars that were either fought a long way away or were penny ante stuff like 1812.

War on the Rocks had a members only podcast with Michael Kofman (a military analyst specializing in Russia that has been quoted by myself and others in this thread). The podcast was actually recorded on a train in Ukraine as the team was heading out of Ukraine. They visited a wide range of areas including the area between Mykolaiv and Kherson. They did not actually reach the front line but from the sound of it got close enough to see artillery damaged roads. They talked to a lot of people including military and civilian experts.

Couple of points they made:

  • Ukrainian morale is extremely high.

  • That’s in spite of the fact that from what they could tell progress on the Kherson front continues, but is slow.

  • Contrary to some claims on Twitter, Russian artillery in Kherson still has sufficient ammunition to fire back. They said they could say this with first hand experience. They did say that for a few days Russian artillery seemed to be really struggling with shortages, but they have gone back to firing regularly.

  • That said, probably Ukraine has at least somewhat of an artillery advantage at this point.

  • Mykolaiv gets hit by the Russians daily even though it doesn’t have any Ukrainian military stationed there.

  • The first week or two of the war back in February, a lot of the Ukrainian defense of the roads heading in to Kyiv was done by random groups of Ukrainians (including a lot of veterans) coming together to fight, and it was not formally constituted military units.

  • While Ukraine has a lot of Russian/Soviet tanks, there is concern that there is not sufficient ammunition. They’re going to have to switch over to NATO tanks at some point.

  • Ukrainians were all incredibly grateful for the US support. They also are nervous about the upcoming election and what it might mean for them.

Soo… were you going somewhere with that? Seemed like you were building toward arguing that the US military has never had any particular reason to be focused.

So I had a question if anyone has seen the answer to. Back in May, the US gave several “Counter Battery radar” systems along with our arty that I was thinking would make short work of the Russian arty.

Either the Russians have so many arty, it’s not even making a dent, or they are ineffective. Has anyone seen any news / information about the counter battery systems we gave Ukraine?

No, just that one big reason the Ukrainians are performing as well as they are is that they sort of have to. And that when Americans assess other nations’ policies and performance, we tend to forget the differences in history. Two different-ish things, I admit.

American military performance broadly speaking has been a product of our social and cultural history, economic and organizational skill, and the fact that in nearly all cases we have not had to fight with our backs literally to a wall. Again, not directly part of the Ukraine situation; I was sort of rambling a bit :).

Mostly the sheer number of Russian tubes I would think. I also imagine the Ukrainians would be targeting high-value systems and not WWII-era leftover howitzers and stuff like that.

Also, counter battery fire only works if the victim is fat & lazy. The flight time of the grenades compounded with reaction time can be greater than the time it takes for the offending artillery to pack up their shit and didi mau the fuck outa there.

The best article I’ve seen on Ukraine counter battery fire and the problems they were having was from this August. Relevant section snip at the bottom. I think drones are even more important than counter-battery radar for quick response.

Competent command

Today’s Ukrainian top command structure does not have a specific command and control body responsible exclusively for artillery.

Similarly to the General Staff, neither of the four Ukrainian main operational command headquarters (“North,” “South,” “East,” “West”) have command in charge of artillery.

This is the result of decentralization in the military – the restructuring that was made in an attempt to step away from the over-centralized Soviet military system and towards Western practices.

Before decentralization, top-level structures like army corps command were directly responsible for organizing and running counter-battery warfare. Brigade-level artillery command, in the meantime, was responsible for supporting the infantry on battlefields rather than hunting hostile artillery.

Now, due to lack of centralized command overseeing artillery, there’s inconsistency among the Ukrainian units and they have to fix it, says Oleh Zhdanov, a Kyiv-based retired senior artillery officer.

“Each of the larger front line sectors — like Donbas, Zaporizhzhia, or Kherson — should have at least one or two artillery brigades, that’s four artillery battalions,” Zhdanov said.

“An artillery brigade would be responsible exclusively for counter-battery warfare within the front line’s 100-150-kilometer-long section. It would work as part of the general reconnaissance system. As its forces get fresh data — it immediately goes out to suppress a Russian battery.”

Zhdanov says that each of Ukraine’s operational command headquarters should have a competent artillery department responsible for counter-battery warfare within their sectors.

But this process also needs to be properly organized, with effective communication between the brain and the muscle, to be able to destroy Russia’s most significant advantage over Ukraine.

“The move towards Western methods of working is happening,” said Glen Grant, a retired British Army officer and former adviser to Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense.

“But it is hampered by lack of communications, poor organizational structures, and still the heavy hand of the old concepts. What is missing still for Ukraine is to complete the decentralization of control artillery by improving the radio links, creating, equipping, and training more front line observer teams for battalions,” he said.

Grant continued, saying that there is a vital need to create a separate trade of artillery intelligence and ensure that they operate in all brigades and have direct radio or Wi-Fi links to every possible source of data about enemy artillery.

“Finally, we need a high-flying drone flying back from the enemy lines 50-100 kilometers with sideways-looking sensors to identify artillery positions and movement. Some of this is in place, but a better system will save lives and help win the war.”

That’s a great article! But this quote stands out:

I don’t think the counter battery we supplied is working. Whether because of training or something else, I don’t know, but my hopes of our technology are seemingly dashed. Darn it.

That article was from August though.

So, based on a message from a field officer under duress from more than three months ago, you’ve decided an answer to this question:

It’s possible your initial premise was flawed based on scale.

But also, you’ve seemingly ignored this sentence in that same 3-month old article that follows the sentence you’ve quoted, no?

Speaking on the condition of anonymity, serving Ukrainian artillery officers polled by the Kyiv Independent admitted that Ukrainian counter-battery activity remains largely problematic, mainly due to the lack of effective top-level organization.

From their perspective, all main components of counter-battery warfare, especially target acquisition via observation points, radar detection, drones, and sound ranging, need to be improved. And target acquisition must be better synchronized with artillery pieces reacting fast to destroy revealed Russian weapons.

Sounds like having the right equipment is just a single piece of the equation, and that the UA is having to kind of learn on the fly how to best implement counter-battery operations across a bunch of different elements and inputs.

And since then, they’ve, y’know, retaken about 2,000 square kilometers of territory. So there’s that, too.

The one thing Putin has succeeded at is in gathering a coalition of the banned around him. All the countries that are more or less pariah nations, linked only by a shared hostility towards the USA and its allies, are flocking to Russia. That they are doing so even when it’s very very clear Russia is not very capable tells us something I think. One, these countries don’t expect Russia to do much for them, other than perhaps facilitate acquisition of weapons and perhaps intel and logistics support. Two, they have pretty much decided that there is zero chance of any negotiations or dialog with the USA, and they are letting us know that if we want to change that we have to do something dramatic.

I can even come up with a plausible (not likely maybe but possible) scenario where a country like Iran deliberately provokes us with aid for Russia so that we can be pushed to give in on something they really want in return for stopping that cooperation…

Or fully convince everyone there’s no negotiation possible and to take a still harder line with them.

Given the economic situation with the embargo on Iran, couldn’t it be just a simple economic measure for them? Why wouldn’t they want to sell stuff to someone willing to pay them money? Double bonus that they are helping the enemy of their enemy.

All of those options are viable, yeah; I’m just indulging in armchair foreign policy-ing! Who the hell knows what the current regime in Iran actually wants, other than to stay in power?

I’m sure they’d be pleased with Islamic Republics in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Russia and Iran’s interests diverge pretty quickly.

Oh, in the long run, yeah, no love lost. As to Islamic states, well, Iran is only interested in Shia states; Sunni states are on its “most hated” list along with the US and Israel. I don’t know what the makeup of sectarian ratios is in the 'Stans, though.