hcrof

My understanding is that they are highly directional and therefore difficult to pick up unless your sensor is exactly in the right place though - happy to be corrected if I am wrong though.

I would love to hear more! I described ATGM teams and drones too, as well as my assumption that you cannot breakthrough without significant attrition, and that enemy vehicles, being easy to spot, will be early targets of that attrition. I also suggest that if you outrun your fire support and drone bubble you are taking a huge risk. This concept necessary requires both to move with you. I have had previous thoughts on that subject: https://community.battlefront.com/topic/142139-new-armoured-vehicle-concept-lessons-from-ukraine/

I think you are right, but a single drone can either take out 1 or maybe 2 soldiers with a successful hit, or 1 vehicle. Vehicles are also bigger targets so easier to hit. This makes vehicles a very attractive target which is sort of what I was saying. Vehicles are an attractive and easy to spot target even behind the line so have to be sneaky to survive.

Some really interesting statistics here. Drones are wrecking enemy equipment but less good at taking out infantry and crew served weapons. I would hesitate to say every strike above is a total loss for Russia but it supports my thesis that anything within 5-10km of the FLOT has got to be sneaky or it will be attacked these days.

My feeling right now (and I am not settled on this) is that an ifv like cv90/40 gives you "enough" firepower as well as infantry carrying capability to act in a breakthrough role. Why? I don't think that any breakthrough will happen until after all the heavy enemy platforms have been attrited or pushed away by drones, artillery, brimstone etc. A 40mm airburst has the range and firepower to have a chance to take out atgm teams (or even the missiles - the same guns are used on ships as ciws). The infantry in the back of the cv90 can have fpv goggles on and help spot for the vehicles with dedicated drones on a secure datalink. BuT wHaT iF iT is aTtacked By A TaNk??? Assuming a tank got missed by the preceding fires a few 40mm airburst rounds will wreck all its sensors and the supporting smart mortar or brimstone fire will finish the job. The huge 70t tank will be seen first by your drones so it shouldnt get a shot off anyway (your 40mm will help clear the sky of enemy drones). Happy to hear any constructive criticism of that idea though! Edit: you would of course use APS, ERA and other fancy tech to protect your vehicle, but the drone screen will work pretty well against heavy threats. Note that the drone screen can be controlled via laser link not Radio since they are kept close to the vehicle. No need to emit radiation and be vulnerable to EW!

I am not arguing that guns are dead, drones are king. I am arguing that I struggle to see the relevance of a 120mm high velocity gun when there are a lot of other systems that will do the same thing at reduced weight, cost and risk to the operators. Smart mortars for the big bang, javelin or spike (and their replacements) for dedicated anti tank, brimstone for long range bang and fpv drones (and their ai guided replacements) for being a persistent threat everywhere.

While there is obviously a benefit for a 3000kph projectile, one that goes around corners does not need to catch a fleeting target. It will just hunt it down. The target can go turret down or try to run but the guided projectile can always catch it. And a tank moves at 40kph. It is only the last part that goes really fast.

I wonder why we have not seen computer assisted targeting yet like how fighter pilots cab see where the bomb will fall or those new rifle sights that shoot automatically when you are pointing in the right direction? Maybe the control software is proprietary and needs to be rewritten? Because right now a fpv has a 15-30% pHit but it could be so much more with some software tweaks. (I know EW is also a thing but that is a harder problem to solve for the moment)

Since I have nothing better to do, here is a thought experiment: The latest western tanks cost $10m and weigh 70t. They have a crew of 4 and at least half that again in dedicated sustainers so say 6 soldiers. They have an annual operating cost of $1m (according to Google, don't quote me on that!), and fire rounds that cost $3k each. Will that system defeat 6 infantry soldiers armed with $1k fpv drones with a range of 5-10km? Or a UGV with a smart mortar, some drone scouts and 6 maintainers/operators?

I see your point there but humans are only cheap if they don't die. The lost productivity of a healthy 18 year old is enormous. But it is beside the point - we are agreed that a tank is a huge investment that can be more effectively spent on other platforms. The benefits gained from a tank have largely been denied by effective long range observation and fires.

On "humans are cheap". They are not. But they are cheap to have "in reserve" since there is such a large pool to draw from. So any peer on peer conflict will always involve large numbers of humans simply because they can be mobilised quickly and in huge numbers. Armies should seek to avoid risk to human life but at the same time take advantage of the huge potential of mass mobilisation if it is required.

I think many armies are including tanks in the future because they are hedging their bets and also because a low intensity war might require tanks. The US has the luxury of having lots of everything, but I think many European armies should consider ditching tanks altogether and spending that money on something else. What is that something else? I am not sure but I think it will involve compact armoured UGVs, APCs for the infantry and UGV "mules" for last mile logistics. And a lot of artillery and drones for fires. Infantry won't go away but may be supplemented by small UGVs that act as team served weapons and drones as expendable scouts. Infantry will become "managers" of a team of robots more than trigger pullers.

A carrier does not provide the same capability as a battleship, nor does a tank provide the same capability as heavy cavalry (also, heavy cavalry disappeared long before the tank was invented). We should stop bemoaning the death of the tank and concentrate on its role in the wider system. Direct fire to 2km - what is that for? Why do we want direct fire? It is not about capabilities it is about the overall effect on the enemy. Heavy cavalry probably always wanted longer and sharper lances but their role does not exist any more so who needs a lance? A system designed to break through the enemy line and destroy enemy logistics? Great until you realise that it will be likely be spotted and destroyed before it gets into range, especially if you mass them into useful numbers. Artillery can hit a tank from 40km, himars from further, drones from anywhere. And wont a swarm of ai directed drones attacking logistics routes have a similar effect without the need for a breakthrough? So the tank gets relegated into penny packets acting as assault guns, but then why not go for a cheaper system which are harder to spot and more capable of navigating difficult terrain (i.e. lighter)? The tank defenders need to tell us how a system designed for the 20th century is supposed to fit into a battlefield that is much more transparent and deadly. 2km direct fire means nothing when a tank company can be spotted and engaged 10km before they reach the enemy. Edit: to give another analogy, a breech loading rifle did not just replace a musket - the whole system had to change.

Infantry are hard to see, very hard to kill in a trench, and don't burn gallons of diesel every hour. Having said that I am sure we will eventually see drones replacing infantry too.

I would love to know how they failed to hit a slow moving aircraft like a rivet joint. I'm sure the Russians would like to know too!

Excellent article as always from RUSI: https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/special-resources/stormbreak-fighting-through-russian-defences-ukraines-2023-offensive Gives a detailed after action report and recommendations for how to improve western training efforts for Ukraine.

Those tires are also gonna be flammable - just dump a Molotov cocktail on them and the plane will go up like a torch!

Must be scary for those guys! Was it confirmed that a boat was destroyed or was that just russian make-believe?

Perhaps that plane was doing a CAP with no air to ground weapons when it got re-tasked at short notice? Certainly not very competent...

I don't want to be "that guy" but given the dispersion of the cannon rounds I can see maybe the boat took a hole or 2 but it is unlikely to have sunk outright? How many rounds does a su-30 carry? Could there be more shots unrecorded?

Thanks, Ukrainian villages all have the same names and it is very confusing when people expect you to know which of the 5 identically named places they are talking about!

Stupid question, but which Urozhaine are we talking about? Near tokmak?

All modelling is a simplification of reality, but physical testing cannot necessarily be done for every conceivable scenario. In reality a combination is used, along with standards etc. Depending on how critical the scenario is there will be an emphasis on one or the other. Protecting a stadium from a hypothetical bomb threat will be done with modelling, standards and safety factors. Protecting a warship from known torpedo threats would include the above as well as physical testing. But no-one is going to torpedo their brand new warship for real to check if it works as intended! Edit: here is a full ship shock trial. Note how they are not actually blowing up the ship directly - they are mostly checking all the fragile stuff like pumps and electronics can withstand a big bang https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-57547885 That is really expensive so is rare and not often done for smaller ships afaik. As well as this, computer modelling would be used for other scenarios, including direct hits.

It is possible to model a blast with a decent degree of accuracy, and this is done a lot when for example designing things you expect to get attacked, or to forensically determine what happened at a blast site. An example of some software that does it is viper, but there are others and they are all validated by physical testing. https://www.viper.as/ The key, as you mention, is to get your inputs right and we just don't have the information to make an accurate assessment!

I think we agree with each other, but a few points: - the defensive scheme was designed before storm shadow (yes they should have anticipated it but Russia acts very short term at the moment). - himars at extreme range is different to himars at easy range or even extended range tube artillery. They may have assessed that the current lines are bad but 10km further back is significantly worse. - the Russian forces at Kherson were VDV, but now the line is largely mobiks so I am not sure you can directly compare how well they may withdraw. I think the force density is lower too, so less room for error. - or just politics, I am just looking for a militarily rational explanation here!