Bil Hardenberger

Upon further review.. I think you're right Warren.  Actually it looks like all three rounds may be coming from the same location.. so maybe only one weapon is involved.

Looks like they just stuck the new turret on an old T-72 hull... without bothering to refurbish it first.
At that rate of fire they would need resupply in about.. oh another 30 seconds of firing... there is probably one minute of firing in that two minute video... and it only carries 1.5 minutes of ammo for those twin 30s. Typical Russian design... prioritizing mass over precision.
Bil

UKR "DIY-Lancets" commercial FPV-drones with attached PG-7 HEAT projectiles

And example of work against Russian BMP-3 (operator from National Guard "Omega" special forces brigade)
 

The terminator is back to fight another propagandabattle vs nothing. For a vehicle that entered service in 2021 it looks pretty rusty and worn-out.

https://old.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/10nkrp5/operation_of_a_russian_tank_support_fighting/
 

That's a common misunderstanding, the Chinese military has actually been trying to remake itself using the Western model as a guide, see:  China's Desert Storm Education. Though they have a long way to go to be in the same league as the US military they are getting there... need I say that I have a professional interest in the PLA?   
Bil

Ah, well zero-for-zero then but I am all about anonymity.  Leave them wondering and let the myths grow.  I heard The Capt was a naval officer who lost an eye in a bar fight in Manila, and now runs guns and rum under the cover of a travelling manatee show.  His insights on military affairs come entirely from MASH reruns and RoW tournaments.

That's a common misunderstanding, the Chinese military has actually been trying to remake itself using the Western model as a guide, see:  China's Desert Storm Education. Though they have a long way to go to be in the same league as the US military they are getting there... need I say that I have a professional interest in the PLA?   
Bil

That's a common misunderstanding, the Chinese military has actually been trying to remake itself using the Western model as a guide, see:  China's Desert Storm Education. Though they have a long way to go to be in the same league as the US military they are getting there... need I say that I have a professional interest in the PLA?   
Bil

That's a common misunderstanding, the Chinese military has actually been trying to remake itself using the Western model as a guide, see:  China's Desert Storm Education. Though they have a long way to go to be in the same league as the US military they are getting there... need I say that I have a professional interest in the PLA?   
Bil

That's a common misunderstanding, the Chinese military has actually been trying to remake itself using the Western model as a guide, see:  China's Desert Storm Education. Though they have a long way to go to be in the same league as the US military they are getting there... need I say that I have a professional interest in the PLA?   
Bil

You've had answers of the required depth from people who've been there and done it and here's one from another 'been there done that guy' - short of putting on a green suit and trying it yourself what has been posted here is as good as its going to get to convey the message.  From the information and analogies in your posts, it is clear you are focused on each individual tank and its operation by the crew in complete isolation.
You seem to be in rather a hurry and the reasons you articulate for that are sound but, the weather and ground conditions are iffy for large scale mechanised operations so the time is better spent training rather than rushing that kit to the front line.  History is replete with examples of how rushing stuff to the front line causes problems, British tanks at the Somme in 1916 and Tigers and or Panthers at Kursk being two vaguely comparisons relevant to the situation now.  Time spent in training and rehearsal is well-spent and lots of people here have rightly criticised the Russian military for launching this operation in a half-bottomed manner and equally criticised the quality of the troops that have turned up as a result of the mobilisation.  It would be unwiser than an unwise thing for Ukraine to adopt exactly the same courses of action as its never time for amateur hour in warfare.

Ok, well just skimming the wavetops here…going from 3 crewmen to 4 is the first real hurdle. Totally different internal systems so maintenance and operation is going to be different.  Different capabilities which will drive how the crew will fight the vehicle (hell they will likely have to learn to live in it first).  No point in getting a new platform if they intend to fight it like their current fleets.  For example western tanks reverse much faster, which drives an entirely different tactical fire and movement procedures.  Different fire control systems and gun behaviour (range, penetration etc), western systems are more point and click but then there is the battlefield comms and info sharing suites.  Ammo handling, damage control and recovery are also different.  
And then you get into specialized drills like minefield breaching, water crossing and snorkelling, all different from Soviet equipment.  In some ways when it comes to crew training I expect that untrained crews are going to be easier to train because they do not have to unlearn the old systems first.
Also western tanks are designed to be fought in platoons of 4, not sure if the UA does the same or fight Soviet style in platoons of 3.  This opens up collective training with just the tanks, based on numbers we are talking up to Company as a minimum.  Training a company to march, shake out, deploy, fight, consolidate and sustain through all phases (offence, defence and withdrawal) is going to take some time as again these are fundamentally different systems.  I expect if UA crews treat them like the Soviet stuff these western tanks will be broken pretty quickly.  Western systems take a lot more TLC.  And then once you do all that, unless you want to relegate the armor to being on its own, you then have to move up to combined arms training and integrate infantry, artillery and engineers - rinse and repeat on the phases of warfare.   Most of these units are going to be in various types of equipment, likely some Soviet and western mixes which is going to get a little weird. You have to do all this without breaking your new tanks or getting people hurt.
And then there is the logistics train.  All the maintainers, recovery folks and specialists that the UA do not have and western nations are not going to put in country.  And then all that has to learn to keep up with the new combat teams, that should not be moving like the current UA armor (see: indirect fire) or what was the point?  So now specialized logistics trains are going to need to learn to keep up with stuff like break through.
Oh and before anyone brings it up, this is crash course speed.  Because the UA will be cutting corners and accepting risk, not too much or see Broken Tanks.  So 6 months is at break neck speed.  This is not moving to a slightly more modern vehicle.  This is a completely new weapon system that takes 4 people to operate it.  Its inherent capabilities and quirks drive how it is employed at basic levels. Upscaling those change how the units that employ these vehicles are organized and operate - in a contact sport where you do not get many second chances. 
 

Regarding the above, I agree with JonS's comments below...
These actions are too small and localized to really have a lasting impact on this war. I expect these types of actions to continue until the ground conditions and the new Brigades are both ready... in the meantime it makes sense for the Ukrainians to block, delay, and cause as many Russian casualties that they can... I only hope they are able to rotate units as this type of warfare has to be a dreary and thankless job.

Finally had a chance to fully read this article. Sounds a lot like the noise the US was making when they were touting the offensive around Kherson when the real attack was around Kharkiv.
 
Is Russia stupid enough to fall for the same trick twice?

Regarding the above, I agree with JonS's comments below...
These actions are too small and localized to really have a lasting impact on this war. I expect these types of actions to continue until the ground conditions and the new Brigades are both ready... in the meantime it makes sense for the Ukrainians to block, delay, and cause as many Russian casualties that they can... I only hope they are able to rotate units as this type of warfare has to be a dreary and thankless job.

Yes.

So, Bakhmut is irrelevant, and it doesnt really matter who holds the rubble, but what's the option? If Russia wants to advance there, and it appears they do, then presumably Ukraine wants to block them? Maybe not literally at Bakhmut, but if not there, then where? Ivanivske? Bohdanivka? Kalinina? Since Russia has the initiative there, Ukraine is effectively forced into continuing the fight there - or somewhere nearby.
The name of the place doesnt matter. What's going on there does.

For sure Poland will move ahead, without Germany.
Hell, I'd be surprised if they even pay whatever fines etc for breaking the re-export contract  permissions. They could just say they will, swear it up and down the street - and never do, just like Brave Soldier Scholz.
Unlike Scholz, the Swedes know how to decide and then deliver:
 

They grow up so fast... we really need to get off our *** (ahem) and finish up that DLC.   

Ok, let's really get into this because I am seeing the fundamental flaw coming out of the "everything is just fine" camp.  The argument, largely coming out of professional military armored circles or those who really love tanks, is pretty much the same.  It posits that:
- Both sides in Ukraine are "doing it wrong".
- "Russia sux"
- "If they all fought like we do, it would all be over by now."   Meaning the conventional combined arms doctrine in context of some form of manoeuvre warfare and AirlLand battle.
- "APS will save us!"
Then, like here we get some cherry picked anecdotes and some really weird twisted logic to somehow defend heavy systems.  They downplay the realities of risk and technological development in this war, which is part of an ongoing trend that had been unfolding for at least a decade.  And never really address the fundamental shifts within the key components of ground warfare which have shifted, not in their communities favour.
So lets unpack some pushback points head on:
Sure for some systems - NLOS and stand-offs such as the Stugna P get around that, and I am pretty sure there will be heavy investment in these systems in the near future.  Some shooters have to step out/up for a few seconds at range with the current systems.  But we are talking about spotting and engaging a small team effectively in seconds at rages out to 2500m.  It has never been and never will be easier to spot a single man with a man portable system at 2500 than that individual can spot a 60t vehicle.  Shorter ranges are not that better either. Sure they have thermals, but those thermals have to pointed in the right spot and in seconds.  And a dismounted man is nowhere near as hot as a 60t vehicle burning gas.
And here is the thing...so freakin what?  A team of ATGM gets knocked out, hurrah!  Right up to the point that there are twenty more out there.  At a min manoeuvre has slowed to a crawl.
So that is a small recon team moving out for close recon in broad daylight with no ISR support as far as we can tell.  Well first it is pretty anecdotal.  We have seen dozens of videos of tank strikes by hidden teams, we have also seen infantry spotted and killed by artillery.  There is a risk of being spotted, definitely.  Modern recon have ground radars designed to detect motion, lot of EM flying everywhere.  But in order to bypass the asymmetric disadvantage posed by these systems you have to observe and control every inch of an enormous area.  Further, operational and strategic ISR can pick up vehicle formations from space - so those small teams can be prepositioned well ahead of an advance.
    So I have seen a lot of these videos as well - "look at how accurate these new systems are".  "IF" you can spot the target at range is a huge "IF"  The evidence from this war is showing that it is the small teams of infantry that are spotting first.  And again the entire cost equation is totally upside down.  A nation can replace light infantry at a much higher rate than it can replace tanks/AFVs - so even if you do use laser precision 90% of the time, that 10% is going to whittle an armored force to pieces over time.  You still have not solved for the fundamentals of visibility and range.  Your vehicle now has to scan an enormous arc to hopefully see a guy expose himself for a few seconds, and then you are dead if you are slower than he is.
If NLOS are "easy to intercept" then why are UAS everywhere on the modern battlefield?  They are not "easy" to intercept when used in large numbers.  We are talking systems that are going to skim treelines and hills until they lock and hit.  They will only need a shot/kill ratios of around 50% - at $210k a pop, to overwhelm the costs of the armored systems they are hitting.  And there are rumours in this war of Javelin coming in at 80-90%...which is nuts.  As to walking mines, the lack of imagination I find baffling.  So if someone plants a set of UGV mines that can move and get under a tank to kill it from below.  They can be hidden everywhere so until they move you likely will not detect them.  Then they wait until the armour/AFVs are nice and close, and suddenly you have got explosive cockroaches all scuttling at you.  We have no counter to that.  This is like the Battle of Yonkers in WWZ, all those fancy guns that can shave a peach at 1500m are going to be useless.
Now to the underlined part - how can I not know where you are?  This is the biggest take away of this entire war.  A modern armored Battlegroup is about 5-10kms long on the march, when one takes into account F/A1/A2 and B echelons.  Given the ISR environment shaping up, I will know exactly where you are and very likely where you are going to be, because I can also see the terrain and shape the space.  So 1 million dumb mines are a complete waste of resources when a few thousand can be prepositioned, re-position if they need to.  Best case is you spot them before they swarm you, at which point your move is completely stalled until you can figure out a counter.
So this was your response to "AFVs are vulnerable to artillery".  Well I would point to the steady stream of evidence coming out of this war and the simple fact that artillery is doing 80-90% of the killing.  Beyond that, this argument is symptomatic of what I have seen coming out of the "community", it basically buries the head in the sand.
Just going to jump to the end here.  So this is sticking to old metrics.  Light infantry move faster operationally but lack punching power of heavy.  Well guess what? They found their punching power.
So out of all of that we have bad assumptions, underplaying risks and over-playing capability.  This is pretty consistent with what has been coming out of the "heavy community" mainstream since last spring.  So instead of having an actual analysis and assessment of where heavy is going, we are instead being told that this entire war is an anomaly.  The UA, who have demonstrated an amazing ability to learn on this battlefield and in many way are ahead of any western doctrine are "doing it wrong."  I propose that they are doing it exactly right for wherever warfare is heading and the fact that they are winning is clear evidence. 
The analysis you provide is directly in line with what mainstream assessments came up with at the beginning of this war.  Based on the rules as we understood them, Russia should have won this war.  It had massive advantages in mass.  Oh that is right "they suck" and the UA just got lucky. 
Or, and everyone say it with me now, the fundamental components of warfare are shifting.  And this is driving an evolution on how wars will be fought.  Historically those that get with the program quickly have advantage for the next war.  Or we can cling to "tradition" and get our asses handed to us.

They grow up so fast... we really need to get off our *** (ahem) and finish up that DLC.   

Ill make the case that the power of at weapons is overstated mostly due to bad tactics and a tech disparity.
We know since WW1 that tanks or rather generally AFVs are vulnerable in low numbers. And at the latest since WW2 we know that you have to protect tanks with infantry from close range at. It seems however that the russians have unlearned these lessons.
This experience report seems to suggest this and this video equally seems to confirm this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpx7TWc58PI And in general ive not seen any good infantry armour combined arms from the russian side.
The ukrainians seem to do this much better and id argue that this on its own massively contributes to the loss disparity between russian and ukrainian afvs.
 
There is also a massive disparity between most russian afvs and western afvs that is hard to overstate: thermals.
Take the video ive linked and imagine just replacing the bmp2 with any modern western ifv. Once the mobility kill happens (even NLAW isnt perfect) youd have 2 independently swung thermal imagers searching for them. And given they were in line of sight and repeatedly firing from the same position for 10min just 350m away even with 2nd gen thermal imagers they would have been spotted.
If we now pair this with proper AFV tactics so no continuous fighting from the same position, supporting infantry, a seconf IFV to support, and maybe some squad or platoon level spotting drones overhead this entire situation suddenly becomes practically impossible for the infantry. And if you add an active protection system they are screwed either way.
 
 
This has some quite significant caveats.
1. unless you have lock on after launch capability youre still limited to los engagements and that dramatically lowers the area a vehicle has to keep track of. It also means to engage the vehicle you have to be in los to the vehicle itself putting you at potential risk. That risk is quite low if youre 1000m away in complex terrain shooting at a single t72 but it becomes much higher if its a platoon of modern mbts. 8 high qualits thermal imagers scanning for you have a quite good chance spotting you even at distance.
2. And if you use lock after launch missiles you can keep yourself safe but still need something to tell you where the tank is. And especially if used at longer ranges its time of flight is significant enough that its better compared to organically called precision artillery.
A tank is definitely easier to find than an infantryman but both can be found and the ammount of drone footage of arty destroying infantry directed by drones is proof of that. A tank however is far more difficult to actually fix in place once spotted compared to infantry.
 
And this leads to The main reason why AFVs are unlikely to ever go away: As demonstrated in this war to gain grund you have to take it from the enemy and to hold it you have to defend it with infantry. No matter the firepower be it precision in cae of the ukrainians or mass in case of the russians can clear an objective. It has to be taken and cleared by infantry.
And once you have to take ground you have to be exposed and you will be detected and you will be shot at. And infantry is vulnerable to literally everything on a battlefield and it cant move at any significant speed on its own. So With drones everywhere the infantry is likely to be spotted and shot to pieces before they can even reach the jumpoff point for an attack or at the latest once the attack actually happens.
Try intercepting this with arty:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw8RDpS1uOE
 If AFVs were truely obsolete Ukraine wouldnt ask for hundreds of tanks and ifvs to enable them to attack.
 

"Won the war"?  Russia has singlehandedly:
- Destroyed its ground forces and likely mauled its air and naval forces, if simply through funding attrition.  Its credibility as a modern military power is in tatters.
- Destroyed its international credibility and driven it towards economic isolation
- Driven Sweden, Finland, and very likely Ukraine itself into the arms of NATO
- Unified Europe and the Western world (and man, that was a tall order)
- Energized western military funding for at least a decade
- Will likely wind up a very vulnerable partner with whoever will do business with them in the future.
I am sure I am missing a few, everyone feel free to jump in.

They grow up so fast... we really need to get off our *** (ahem) and finish up that DLC.