holoween

It doesnt sound like much but youre looking at a full truck worth of wire for a platoon position and depending on how its delivered quite some time to set up. In an environment where trenches are quite often not even reinforced it seems to me to simply be too far down the priority list. Also my rl experience is were usually putting wire obstacles to channel the enemy to particular places by blocking paths in areas where there is not much freedom of movement like paths through a forest.

It takes a lot of wire to close any length gap and it takes quite some time to set up.

Because its true. Sounds paradoxical but isnt. If youre thrown into a random combat situation and have to deal with a tank and get to choose one weapon system to deal with it youll always choose a tank. Because it can do the job at any distance in any weather condition any EW and air defense situation in very short time. But tanks cant be everywhere and in a lot of specific circumstances other weapons are more effective and importantly widespread.

Id say a Nlos ATGM like spike does it even better (impossible to jam, far more reliable effects) but yea If you can avoid the front armour of a tank HEAT is great. Another tank has never been the best thing to kill another tank since their invention. at least if looked at from what actually killed tanks. Artillery, mines, Infantry with anti tank guns later atgms and hanndheld at have always been the primary killers.

And yet between the 2 HEAT shells are being phased out in favour of time fuzed HE while APFSDS is being retained. Thats because HEAT doesnt have the required effect against MBTs and is significantly less accurate then APFSDS.

add a guidding kit to the naval shell and that suddenly doesnt work any more. Time between weapons employment and effect seems to better predict defensibility

Tbh i found it mostly annoying but not that difficult. There simply isnt at aside from pzf and pzschreck. So battles consist of hiding your inf in reverse slopes or behind buildings while anihilating the american infantry with mortar and arty fire and then hoping to kill the tanks once they push up unsupported.

Sure the exact number may vary but the basic principle will stay the same for quite some time. The reason is that drones have limited payload so if you invest it into a warhead you simply dont have the capacity to also get great range and great cameras. Well unless you dont care about size and price. If you make it large enough you can have all you want but thats expensive. So getting a bunch of drones with long flighttime and great optics to recon and then once targets are found direct the attack drones on them is going to allow for greatest effect. If the attack drones have to find their own target they would end up with far shorter range because they would have to be able to make a return trip if they dont find anything or be lost entirely. Also getting cued only from friendly units once in contact would be less effective since the enemy now cant be engaged before getting to engage himself.

The typical drone attacks tend to be: At least 1 (usually more like 3+-1) spotting drone to find targets in the first place and to allow coordinating When a target has been found the fpv drones get send out to attack usually limited by operators. Depending on target and availability arty and drone bombers are also used. Where SHORAD helps significantly here is in pushing back those spotting drones or shooting them down. The tanks in COIN is funny to me because ive seen them or more exactly IFVs be highly useful and well worth their money. So as per this scenario the SHORAD would be able to deal with an attack that otherwise has the potential to take out an entire battalion. So even taking your scenario at face value that seems like great value. This also Throws up a dilema. If youre defending against an attack do you attempt to attrit the air defense first which means the attack might go through mostly unharmed by your supporting fires or do you focus on the attack itself which leaves the air defense free to do its job. So we bring FPV drones and SHORAD and our enemy brings just FPV drones. As per your example we lose a few vehicles while they lose a battalion. This seems like a reasonably sustainable attrition rate. And as per your scenario you dont need 2 per platoon but more like a platoon per battalion so 15 vehicles per brigade. This entire calculus also get a whole lot better once you actually enable your normal vehicles to engage drones aswell which isnt that much of a problem either. It gets even better when you include your own drone operators hunting down enemy drone operators and fire support. UAS at the current capability will become cheaper. Those for military use will become more expensive. Want them hardened against EW? Thats another hundred bucks for each. Want them with more than a few km range and still good payload? You just doubled the price. And all that is only necessary because you introduce countermeasures. Your ideal counter uas weapon simply doesnt work with physics. For ballistic weapons youre looking for a 30mm gun with a good fire control system so a few tons at least. For directed energy weapons you need the emitter itself and a power supply to sustain it aswell and thats another few tons. For infantry to carry more, move faster and go longer without resupply you need an external powersource. The most effective way to provide what you want is to give the infantry a vehicle. And if youre thinking exoskeletons then you might aswell forget about cheap in the first place. And while im not trying to understate the effectiveness of drones and i absolutely see them as a vital part of combat there are ways to mitigate their effect. Starting from low level simply having someone as a dedicated air observer to spot drones and getting them a shotgun or mg on an aa tripod gives a slight chance to deal with them. Provide each vehicle with a weapon capable of shooting down drones. Already starting btw Get some dedicated SHORAD vehicles for more effective fire and to protect vital points

delete please accidentialy hit post

This seems a really weird thought process form you. Just because a system isnt perfect we shouldnt bother? From what ive seen the vast majority of drones are used for scouting to then call in fires either from arty or fpv drones. If that system can shut down the recon drones it already does an invaluable job. Suddenly an attack cloumn doenst get hit several km away from the first defender but only once they are in direct los to them. And if it forces all drones to hug the treelines to stay alive they suddenly see far less and become far more vulnerable to other weapons.

I dont think this has found its way here yet. https://en.zona.media/article/2024/02/24/75k This is an article primarily trying to estimate russian losses but does a comarison with ukraine aswell. Its a russian news org so take with a grain of salt but from a read through and a quick glance at their other work it at least isnt an obvious propaganda site.

One thing that isnt modeled at all is safety distance. With a morthar you can fire far closer to friendly infantry before getting danger close. So IRL the last prep fires on a position before infantry assaults would usually be morthars.

How about actual troops. There has never been a question on weather NATO territory would be defended or not.

NATO is a defensive alliance. Which is why when the US triggered Article 5 after 911 all of NATO joined while it didnt participate in the 2003 Iraq invasion.