Vanir Ausf B

Different article in the NYT talking about the evolution of Russian tactics (paywalled, I assume). ___________ American officials acknowledge that Russian tactics have improved. But those officials believe, based on battlefield intelligence reports, that the success in Bakhmut was largely because of Wagner’s willingness to throw prisoners into the fight, no matter the cost in lives. But the soldiers on the ground saw something else happening. Soldiers fighting for Ukraine in Bakhmut described a fight that ended much differently from how it began. Prisoners were not as prevalent. Instead, they said, Wagner’s professional fighters coordinated ground and artillery fire on Ukrainian positions, then quickly outflanked them using small teams. As Ukrainian territory shrunk to a final few blocks, for example, Russian forces saturated a Ukrainian-held building with artillery. Moments after they retreated, Russian troops were inside. “The Ukrainians just couldn’t keep up,” said one foreign legion soldier. To counter Russia’s strategy, Ukrainian forces wired buildings to explode, detonating them as they retreated. The March mission report shared with The Times alluded to this type of enemy: “Assumed to be Wagner group,” the report read. “Evidence of being well-trained.” “Used effective fire and maneuver,” it continued, describing “the best equipped Russian soldiers.” But prowess in one area or during one mission has not yet translated widely. And American officials say that while Russia has adapted its tactics, its troops overall are not growing more sophisticated. ________ https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/17/world/europe/russia-ukraine-war-tactics.html

Guardian article. The drone operator interviewed says the offensive is going better than territorial gains would suggest, but acknowledges that Russian helicopters are a problem. ________ ... despite the gradual progress so far, the group argue it is going better than the slow rate of village capture might suggest. “Maybe it is not very obvious because we are not moving very fast, but we destroy equipment, tanks, everything,” says Spielberg. Gennadiy also describes determined opponents, notably using some weapons for which his brigade had no effective counter. “There are constant attacks from helicopters, three or four times a day,” he says, describing the Russians’ deadly use of Ka-52 attack craft in and around the frontline, and admitting they are difficult to shoot down from the ground, eluding his own efforts on the battlefield. _______ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/17/21st-century-warfare-ukraine-counteroffensive-frontline

Looks like two targets were hit. Not sure how he determined they were Bradleys, given the crappy video quality.

That's... a whole different discussion. Suffice to say the US relationship with Israel has become entangled with US domestic politics to the extent that the Administration has limited room to maneuver. It also doesn't help that Netanyahu and Biden despise each other.

I feel your frustration. Anyone who has played Black Sea knows APS is a literal game changer. In the game. This would be the ideal conflict to test if that is also true in reality. But I'm not sure we can place the blame entirely on "NATO". All of the APSs presently deployed on NATO vehicles are made by Rafael and it is unlikely Israel would approve the re-export.

Not likely. But it is likely that many of these strikes are not resulting in total losses. Lancets are typically guided to their target by a spotter drone. If no spotter drone footage is provided showing a burning vehicle the vehicle probably did not burn.

Could be. While I take it with a massive heap of salt, Rybar said as much.

"Predictable" indeed

A RUSI article on JDAM vs. Russian EW. Jamming JDAM: The Threat to US Munitions from Russian Electronic Warfare

That is a good take on it.

Biden's just carrying on a tradition.

Ok, enough drone talk. How about tanks! Illia Ponomarenko has a good article on the M1 Abrams Ukraine is receiving and the associated technical challenges. _________ According to the Kyiv Independent's sources, the Ukrainian military expects to get the M1A1SA variant, which confirms earlier reports by U.S. media. The SA ("Situational Awareness") variant notably features FBCB2 communications platform for tracking hostile and friendly units nearby and a thermal scope for a .50 caliber machine gun, which improves the tank's effectiveness against hostile infantry in urban warfare. According to Kyiv-based think tank Defense Express, the fact that, against expectations, Ukraine gets the older M1A1 version of the tank is not bad news. The M1A1 SA version Ukraine will get is generally as good as the M1A2 SEPv2 modernization introduced in the 2010s However, Ukraine’s tanks will not come equipped with third-generation depleted uranium armor because of the U.S. export ban on such... ..."When you compare the Abrams to other western tanks, it's just a very difficult task — not for the crew but for those who support it," says Mark Hertling, the retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General and the former commander of the 1st Armored Division.... And in this regard, from Hertling's perspective, the Ukrainian military currently has shortcomings with supply chain management. This remains the biggest concern for the retired general, who is deeply supportive of Ukraine's war effort. For instance, when it comes to engine repairs, M1s variants are powered by a singular integrated propulsion unit titled Full-Up Power Pack (FUPP), a combination of a Honeywell AGT1500 turbine engine and an Allison X1100-3B transmission. And since it's a jet engine, air filters must be cleaned every 12 hours via startup and cool-down procedures. "All those things can be taught to the crew, but if ever they make a mistake — and they will — it blows a million-dollar engine that can't be repaired in the field," Hertling says. "It has to be taken out of the vehicle, shipped back over the supply line, and replaced with a new engine. You can ask why can't it be repaired in the field. I guess if you have a bunch of jet mechanics in your field location where the tanks are, you could. But that's not what the U.S. military does. We pull the engine and ship it back to depot-level maintenance, and they repair both the engine and the transmission." _________ https://kyivindependent.com/what-will-it-take-for-ukraine-to-maintain-and-operate-the-m1-abrams/

Perfect. Take away the vodka and there WILL be blood in the streets.

It also looks like the number of drones was closer to 5 than 25.

Even if doing so were feasible (it is not) placing the Turkish Straits outside of NATO control would be a huge own goal.

I think this is mostly true but we should remember that we don't see or hear about everything consequential that happens.

That, plus the collapse of oil prices.

From the screenshot provided it looked to me like the vehicle was not on the edge of the trees. But it's hard to say for sure from that angle and he didn't specify.

It's for all units. To satisfy my own curiosity I set up a test consisting of T-34/85s area firing through trees of one, two and three action spots deep. I let them fire all HE ammo -- 39 rounds each. All 117 rounds passed through the trees. My conclusion is that the safe zone is even larger than I thought, at least 24 meters and probably more. I can't explain what you saw. Either you were mistaken or it was a rare bug.

Correct. And the more I think about it I feel the distance is more like 16 meters. It's been a long time since this was brought up so the details are vague in my head. But the gist of it is shooters don't have to worry about hitting themselves. But friendly forces down range absolutely can be hit by friendly fire of 12.7mm or larger. Yes, I don't think the same rule applies to buildings although I have never seen a unit hit the building they are shooting from. But I have seen grenades bound back to the thrower.

Nah. Outbound fire ignores all vegetation within a small radius of the shooter, on the x and y axes. IIRC it's 8 meters, but don't quote me.

Trees in action spots between units can block or degrade LOS but trees in the same action spot as the unit(s) never do, as far as I can tell. So your tank can see fine out of a tree line so long as it is on the edge.

You have LOS, it's just that your spotting checks are being heavily penalized. If you wait long enough the units may spot each other. Even when the target line shows no LOS through trees units can sometimes spot each other. That's why you shouldn't trust trees to hide your units unless there is a LOT of foliage between you and the enemy. At least that's what I think is most likely happening. The lack of 1 to 1 graphical representation of tree canopies make it difficult to know for certain how LOS is being affected in any situation.

There is some wackiness going on but it is due to the way foliage affects spotting. Judging from your screen shots I suspect LOS is being degraded by tree branches, despite appearances to the contrary and despite what the LOS line says. In Combat Mission tree trunks are accurately represented visually but tree canopies are significantly abstracted. In my experience tree canopies are both less opaque and lower to the ground "under the hood" than their visual representation suggests. This unintuitiveness is compounded by the target line lacking LOS context. When checking LOS with the target command the LOS line is binary -- you either have it or you don't. But under the hood LOS through trees is non-binary. Tree branches and leaves degrade LOS proportional to how much tree canopy the line passes through "under the hood". The target command line will show clear LOS up to a certain amount of degradation, then at some point will change to show LOS blocked even though spotting is still possible.