Before we get into the most recent developments of the war between Russia and the Ukraine, I want to focus a little bit about how Russia is outstripping the West technology-wise. We all know necessity is the mother of all invention. And war is the mother of all necessity. The Russians haven’t missed a beat innovating. One of the most terrifying weapon systems in Russia’s developing arsenal are its multifarious thermobaric weapon systems. They now have at least three operating platforms to deliver these utterly destructive weapons. Thermobaric weapons are not illegal under the rules of war. They are accepted as valid and while the Ukrainians might complain, no one is listening.
If you recall the MOAB–so called Mother of all Bombs, was a thermobaric weapon. Thermobaric weapons explode and aerosolize fuel in the air before they ignite. They are designed to destroy bunkers, and killl everyone in them. The United States has not developed them futher, resting on their laurels as they have no need to do so, so they think.
Not so Russia. Here is a primer on thermobaric weapons. Here is a primer in a more Russo-Ukraine conflict context. So far the US has only developed a thermobaric grenade, the MOAB, the Hellfire missile and one for a minor Marine rocket launcher. That is the limit of US innovation.
TOS-1A on a T-72 tank chassis.
The Russians on the other hand have taken things a lot further. First, the MOAB destructive power is 9.8 tonnes. The Russian version, dubbed the FOAB (father), is the equivalent of 44.4 tonnes. But the Russian version of the bomb is overkill and the Russians know it, using it only sparingly. Instead they developed a launch system of 24 thermobaric rockts placed on top of a T-72 tank chassis with a maximum range of about 6 kilometers, called the TOS-1A. Many of the TOS-1A were destroyed early in the war. The TOS-1A could be spotted and destroyed by some of the more advanced counter-artillery weapons systems the West gave the Ukrainians. So, the Russians, as trench, fortified and urban warfare became more prevalent, reboubled their efforts.
TOS-2, mounted on a six wheeled Ural.
The Russians soon upgraded the TOS-1A with the TOS-2. The TOS-2 is based on a wheeled vehicle for better shoot and scoot capability to avoid being blown up by counter battery attacks. The rockets are more lethal–having flecks of magnesium and aluminum to make them hotter (tests are ongoing with nanofuels) and have a range of almost 15 kilometers. It is also equipped with modern sights and target navigation systems, I beleive based on Russia’s GLONASS, their version of GPS satellite targeting. TOS-2 vehicles can self reload, and come equipped with electronic warfare jamming systems. Here is the first of two videos, made within the last two months showing the devastation the TOS-2 system, which recently underwent an upgrade, can do to Ukrainian lines. Here is the second. Warning to the viewer: these are real scenes of war. Viewer discretion advised.
Iskander Misiles topped with thermobaric warheads.
Moreover, even the much vaunted Iskander ballistic missile can be mounted with a 700 kg thermobaric warhead. The list of Russian thermobaric weapons is simply to long to itemize and discuss. The important fact here is that the United States has no answer to weapons like this. The Russians have officially incorporated these fearsome weapons into their artillery doctrine and are now using them all across the front lines to destroy bunkers, trenches and near the front hardened command centers. The results, per the CIA (arguably not the most trustworthy source, but it’s what I got) describe horrifying results:
the effect of a [thermobaric] explosion within confined spaces is immense. Those near the ignition point are [incenerated]. Those at the fringe are likely to suffer many internal, invisible injuries, including burst eardrums and crushed inner ear organs, severe concussions, ruptured lungs and internal organs, and possibly blindness.
Not to mention the harderned structures they are sheltering in collapse on top of them. It has been frequently reported that many Ukrainian soldiers who experience such explosions and survive surrender immediately, the psychological effect is that crippling. The pressure on the front and the Ukrainian infantryman gets greater and greater every day.
Five quick links. This first one is worth everyone’s time because it actually destroys a BBC article based on Russia’s neglect of Mariopol, a town it took early in the war and supposedly has left to rot, per the BBC. The video proves the exact opposite. Watch it here.
Second, brutal attacks on Kremenchuk, and third Russia prepares to storm Pokhrovsk.
Third, a brief summary of Russian advances along the line of contact and a Ukrainian counter-attack.Worth the 3.34 minutes of the video.
Lastly, a pretty respectful and wide ranging conversation between an American interviewer and the Russian ambassador to the UN. Longish but all in English and worth watching. It’s a rare example of no-bullshit in my opinion.
More as it develops.
Oakchair
Russia views the Ukraine-Russian war as an existential war. Comparatively to what Russia could have done and what typically occurs in wars the early years saw Russia avoid inflicting damage and restraining from doing so. Why? Why in a war of survival would Russia do this?
Because the Ukrainian war is one of the tactics being used to accomplish their long term strategy.
The use of these advance weapons furthers Russia’s long term strategy in a similar vein that nuking Japan did.
The roles have somewhat flipped in that the war is no longer being extended by NATO, but is being extended by Russia.
Feral Finster
Nobody cares about Ukraine or Ukrainians, nobody in Washington, nobody in Brussels, nobody in Kiev.
Rather, the plan ever always only was for the Americans to ride to the rescue, presumably to rescue their european catamites. This plan is progressing apace, where Trump will get mousetrapped into supporting a war.
Of course, Russian dithering and indecision are making that war more and more likely.
Oakchair
Does the recent war with Iran and it’s tentative outcome make NATO/America more or less likely to start bombing/invading Russia?
Does Russia’s recent display of their missiles –which can reach NATO countries– make NATO/America more or less likely to?
Does the Pakistan Indian air war where Pakistan –armed with Chinese aircraft– wiped the floor with India’s larger western air-force make NATO/America less or more likely to?
Does the pro-NATO pro-war Presidential candidate losing in Poland make NATO less or more likely to?
If Russia had completely defeated Ukraine earlier –which they could have if that was their overachieving goal– would that have made America/NATO more or less likely to engage verse the slow defeat accompanied by periodic reality TV drama about how those tough inventive Ukrainians are going to win with their latest courage’s move?
Sean Paul Kelley
@oakchair: I assumed those are all a bunch of rhetorical questions that you have your own answers to, yes?
Purple Library Guy
The Russians keep creeping forward, one treeline and town at a time. But it’s getting faster. It’s hard to gauge because it’s getting faster . . . slowly. These days sometimes they’ll get a bigger breakthrough and grab a few towns at a time until Ukraine rushes some reinforcements to that front. But then, in a little while the Russians figure out where they took them from and start advancing there.
Ukraine still mounts counterattacks here and there. Sometimes they work and push the Russians back by a town’s worth. Sometimes they just all get creamed by drones before they even reach the front. But even when they work, it’s just kind of temporary, and they lose forces doing it, and again, they have to pull them from somewhere, and that somewhere is just going to lose the ground the counterattack is gaining. And I feel like when the Russians give ground it’s mostly because they’re patient and have no need to get lots of people killed over every hamlet. Back up, give the drone crews and artillery time to cull the enemy, counterattack later.
It feels to me like the Ukrainian defense is slowly fraying. It has been slowly fraying for quite a while now, so it starts to feel like the final collapse will never happen, but . . . actually, I’m pretty sure it will.
Sean Paul Kelley
@Purple Library Guy: So you’re mostly right. But Russia, having placed the thermobaric rocket launchers firmly in their official artillery doctrine are now using a one-two punch against the Ukrainians that seems to be having so seriously deleterious effects on them. First, they launch the thermobaric rockets, TOS-1A and TOS-2, at trenches and fortified areas along the line of contact. At the saem time, as the rockets saturate the radar etc. they send in swarms of Geran-2 kamikaze drones to hit mustering points, ammo depots and command centers just behind the lines to wreak havoc on re-supply and rotation of troops. Watch the video here, but viewer beware.
Oakchair
@Sean Paul Kelley
Yes, I have answers to those questions. Everyone has answers to them.
One answer is the chance of NATO bombing/invading Russia has dramatically decreased.
Likewise, another answer is that the sunk cost bias, arrogance, empire, and the perceived moral imperative of destroying Putin mean that all those events didn’t really change the calculus at all.
The empire needs to be seen as invincible or else it will it will experience more instances of Venezuela taking Britain’s oil in Guyana and Africa kicking out the French. The string of failures makes winning in Ukraine much more important increasing the chance of Russia getting invaded/bombed by NATO. On the contrary if the Empire won’t commit to taking out the far weaker Iran why should we expect them to commit to taking out Russia?
Everyone’s answers can and should be argued. The answer that NATO is getting more and more likely to bomb/invade Russia doesn’t hold water.
Purple Library Guy
Mr. Kelley, I just didn’t get into exactly HOW the Russians are creeping forward. I don’t recall saying or implying it was all done with infantry or something. I’m quite well aware of the TOS systems, which even the 2 version has been in use for a while now. And I’m aware that recently they started using the Geran drones much more, and for targets closer to the front line. It seems production has recently increased by quite a bit, so they’re able to widen their role.
For those wondering why the big deal about these drones rather than the masses of other drones that have been all over these battlefields for most of the war, it’s simply that they have a much bigger payload. These are not “damage an APC” kind of drones. So you have the precision and range of a drone, with the destructive power of artillery, while probably significantly cheaper and more mass produced than something like an Iskander missile. It seems like just a difference in degree, but with a big payload you can blow up a building, letting you take down what used to be fairly safe concentrations of troops and materiel a ways behind the lines.
Nonetheless, troops scatter and hide. Everyone on both sides has known for a while that it’s a good idea not to get found if you don’t want to be bombarded, and a good idea to spread out if you don’t want to be a target worth big ordnance. And especially, drone-wrangling squads hide like crazy, and at this point they are what REALLY makes it hard to mount an advance. This new-ish development makes it harder for Ukraine to hold the lines, but as far as I can tell from the way the front is moving, not impossible. It changes the game a bit but doesn’t transform it radically.