chris talpas

Sorry to interrupt the beating of a dead tank (geddit?) but I want to talk about air denial in higher altitudes.
In his last video while talking about North Korea having like 20 SAM launchers in total, Perun said how that this war is special because it's basically two countries with largest GBAD arsenals in existence fighting each other and we should be careful to apply that lesson elsewhere.
What does the room think?

These discussions are becoming so tedious.

I believe there is actually an ancient fable about this.
"But now we will both surely drown" said the Hungarian toad.
"Lol" said Budanov. "Lmao." And activated his jetpack.
 
Orban's full control of the media means he can already spin anything in any way. 
That won't make fuel prices go down. 
Now he will have to make a deal with someone else. These someones are countries with deep sea ports for tanker ships, like the Netherlands.
Ukraine just increased the diplomatic leverage of the EU over a Russian vassal while reducing Russian income. 
In any other situation we would call this a master stroke of a political maneuver. But because we are p---yfooting around a genocidal dictatorship, we focus on the negatives.

Just to set everyone's minds to rest, I decided not to throw my hat into the ring.

"As President Biden often says, 'The United States will support Ukraine for as long as it takes.' We will not waver." (VP Kamala Harris, 2/19/23)
 
Act accordingly.

Biden was LOSING. It will take at least a month for the new nominee to be finalized, and see where we are at now. I will take one last roll of the dice over certain defeat any day.

If Biden truly wants to maximize Harris’ chances, he should turn over the presidency as well to give some power of incumbency to her -a test drive of her presidency.  

Biden stepping down
Joe Biden ends re-election campaign https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1e5xpdzkd8o
MMM

If the US backs off on sanctions and renormalizes relations with Putin’s Russia, the damage to the international order will be pretty much irreversible. It essentially would mean the US based international rules system is dead. The repercussions of that are world breaking.  

You need to compare relative complexity, not absolute. In today's terms, a Sherman is mostly welded metal. Back then, it was (nearly) the best they could do.
However, we can compare prices. A Sherman cost about $60k in '45 a piece. That is roughly $1m in today's money.
A Bradley sets you back about $3m. So same ballpark range. The factor 3 may very well be the difference between a mass product and a small batch.
Don't forget, we are all sitting on the shoulders of giants. Try to think about the amount of technology necessary to read these very words that have appeared on your screen. This is mind-boggling and yet, literally in everybody's hands.
A Bradley is more complex than a Sherman, but the effort to make one (in its time) is roughly the same. All the improvements in productivity make this possible.
 

My sense is we are watching a war of exhaustion unfold before us.  Both sides are on a race to the bottom. Russian major strategic mistake - compounding the many that got them here - is that they see, to believe one last hard burn will break Ukraines back.  The more they do this their own burnout point is accelerating towards them.  Neither side really knows when they will hit the exhaustion point but both sides have one.
The only good news is that I suspect Ukraine has a better sense of where their breaking point may be…or at least I hope so.

I too am extremely skeptical of the modular designs. I think it’s much better to have common interfaces and modular components:
Sensor packages Turrets VLS for missles and drones Engine/power pack

It's been a frustrating and confusing experience seeing the Republican party pivot from hawks drooling at the prospect of finding an excuse to invade another Middle Eastern country to just saying "eff it, let's go for straight up treason to own the libs or something".

In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.

This right here.  Even if we re-establish battlefield symmetry there is no reason to keep humans forward if we do not have to. The “good old days” actually creates significant human costs that directly impact political will. So sidestepping this and ensuring the other side does the human dying while our side is mostly machines, is going to be the plan one way or the other. 

Just to clarify, I wasnt suggesting BFC was misreading or misunderstanding the situation. I was noting that there will always be expensive platforms somewhere in the OOB, with protecting infantry practically guaranteeing at least one expensive vehicle type. The disproportionate cost of protecting v attacking is a function of warfare in itself.
Am I facetious if I note that a bulletproof vest with ceramic plates costs far more than a clip of bullets? Yet they are just a assumed cost in having infantry. Roman armor v arrows, etc. 
So something cheap (arrows - >FPV+) is always the threat, and the cost of protecting is sorta irrelevant because it's unavoidable. 
The nature of the protection and where the cost is spread is the real question, no? 
The current overwhelming emphasis is on the material body of the vehicle, protecting against attacking material. 
The issue with FPVs is not that they're cheap flying munitions but that they're very  controllable from a safe distance, ie indirect networked threat that can hit the static weak points of a platform at will. 
Current defenses are static (armor), passive (camouflage) or limited dynamic (APS)  but all are limited to the vehicle body itself, ie against direct material threats. The box is made stronger and tougher with each iteration but its still just a dumb metal box getting punched in the face, ear,  kidneys, etc. 
The vehicle must be able to organically protect itself outside itself. 
A platform mounted Drone CAP unit, slaved to the vehicles Defensive AI OS, might not require radar/emissions. Say 9 drone package mounted on the top of a Bradley-type - 3 in air at all times, 3 immediate reserve, and 3 charging/final back up. Automatic response, layered networked and autonomous defense without human intervention. Minimal additional logistics burden. 
A full rethink of the entire dumb box, into a smart box that can independently protect itself, is needed. 
 

Leaving aside the question of the conditions for the applicability of one or another method, let us note that none of them provides for a long walk at full height ("sticking") in front of an enemy trench, and even going in a crowd. 19/
The translation is a little unclear here. Markin laments that no Field Manual (RU or NATO) stipulates that the attack group should stick around at the front of the trench as an unorganized blob. Aside from psychological (fear) and organizational issues (delays), there are practical reasons to do so.
The majority of firefights end when one side decides they've had enough or runs out of ammunition. So, it is possible to outlast the enemy just by sticking around. Second, getting into the trench is dangerous. Your situation awareness suffers and usually trench is already pre-registered. Finally, advancing forward beyond the trench is dangerous as well; rear areas outside of the trenches are mined deliberately to keep assault force inside the pre-registered trench.
As you can see, sticking around is not as bad as you may think (Markin fails to realize it). 
[Skipping not very useful part] 
If trenches are not almost completely covered from above (and there are simply not enough materials, as well as time and effort resources to do so), those in such a trench will be knocked out rather quickly. 44/
It is quite problematic to return to the practice of canopies over trenches, which was practised in the First World War, precisely because of the lack of resources in the broad sense of the word for their construction. 45/
In addition, it was noted as early as the early 20th century that canopies interfered with the use of trenches as a starting point for attacks, limiting their usefulness. Canopies were subsequently abandoned. 46/
Interesting problem. A trench that is only partially covered with overhead cover is not protected from drops. Drone will just drop the gift where the cover ends, blasting soldiers with shrapnel from the side. You can cover the whole trench, but your situation awareness will be poor, and it is impractical to send so much material to the front lines. Also, following artillery fire, debris from the cover tends to clog the trench.
In the main document, he suggests doing what UKR do. You dig up a small branch as an individual firing post. Then, cover the small branch and a portion of the main trench that intersects with it. Even if a drone drops anything into the main trench, the soldier inside the branch is behind the corner and will be unaffected. 
[Skipping not very useful part] 
3) The next important factor is the effectiveness of preparatory artillery fire through fire correction by UAVs, the ability for real-time correction of small arms, grenade launchers and small-calibre mortars at individual defensive positions (firing cells/embrasures) using… 61/
…UAVs, which multiplies the probability of knocking out the most significant firepower of the defenders, as well as the use of UAV ammunition drop systems in preparation for and support of an attack. 62/
As a result of the impact of these factors, the defenders, who are initially few in number due to the thinness of the formations inherent in the current conflict, are knocked out a significant number of soldiers and firepower for a given defensive position. 65/
and few next quotes
I will paraphrase these statements based on the main document description. 
Infantry in forward positions will most likely be significantly reduced owing to dispersion and attrition. Anything (including crew-served weapons) and anybody outside of the shelters will most likely be destroyed/killed by drone-adjusted artillery/drone drops/FPVs by the preparatory fires. As a result, the defender will most likely have to defend the position with substantially fewer soldiers than he would normally expect (literally 3-4 soldiers for a platoon sized strongpoint). In this situation, the majority of standard techniques, such oblique fire or throwing grenades in a volley, won't be effective. Now I'll compile some Markin's recommendations from the article/tweets (I adjusted it for better readability) 
 

Ukrainian Bradleys are provided with BRAT on both hull and turret, which is at least somewhat effective against Lancets. Abrams has ARAT only on the hull, a deficiency Ukrainian tankers have complained about.
“We as a crew and as a battalion in general would like from our American partners to provide us with dynamic armor, so that we have not only the flanks protected, but also the turret.”

My god..can we add treason ?
The US definitely benefits from the rules based order which it has led (reserve currency for example).  Do people really want to topple this?  I just want to cry thinking about November.
My apologies for the diversion (just a concerned neighbour)

It’s what keeps us grounded.

That's probably a translation of кум, word meaning "mate" in vernacular (as in "a mate of Syrski") (historically meaning a friend close enough to be a godfather to one's child) in Ukrainian and several other slavic languages. Not the other thing.

But at least people wouldn't need to have functioning gas or electricity to heat their homes or cook their food.

https://english.nv.ua/nation/ukrainian-defender-calls-on-zelenskyy-to-investigate-59th-separate-motorized-brigade-commander-50434733.html
 
https://t.me/GeneralStaffZSU/16148
 
 

Another very topical episode from Perun where he looks at Russian equipment losses and replenishment.  Long term trends not encouraging for Russia but also chiding incremental western support that is allowing them to adapt.