The_Capt

I am not sure the current rocket laying system is a problem. The problem seems to be minefield depth. MICLIC are only about 100m long and RA minefields are around 500m. Brits have a system 200m: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine-clearing_line_charge And of course they have developed mine fuses to counter the effects. Multiple lanes are of course a good idea but that is a lot of systems as there are multiple minefield belts. So again, part of an overall larger system and operation, not a silver bullet. Warfare rarely gives a silver bullet solution. To break trench warfare of WW1 forces needed armor/mech, AirPower, C2 and logistics. To break manoeuvre warfare it looks like C4ISR, unmanned and PGM (meaning everything from artillery to ATGMs to AD) have all conspired together. To break the current state of things it is going to take another complex system. Key components of which are Force Projection, Force protection, Firepower, C4ISR and Force sustainment. However the technologies and doctrine to combine some of these successfully may not exist yet.

So explosive breaching is a thing but it is part of a breaching system, not a silver bullet. First off it won’t do a thing against enemy ISR, artillery, ATGMs and AFVs etc. It can blow a lane through a minefield through explosive over pressure…but, it is not 100%. A proving vehicle has to go first through the blown breach, normally a roller tank. Mines can be deep buried or wind up in a shadow zone. The safe lane still canalized forces who need cover to get across, which makes them vulnerable. One does not need to string a bunch of explosive sections together and try to fly them over. Just send a lead line to the far side and tow the charge across. But this won’t solve the core problems. The other downside to an explosive breach is the damn thing is hugely visible. The second one gets lit the enemy knows exactly where the breach is going in. So, yes, we can do explosive breaching with lone charges but they still need all the pre-conditions one requires for other types of breaches. As to precision targeting of individual mines. Great idea but one has to be able to see them all. And then after detonation - you would need to do that all at once - you still have to prove the lane like a line breach. The biggest danger of a minefield is that it forces vehicles to single lanes across wide open fields. And it forces them to move slowly doing it. Mines may cause casualties but they are not the main killer which are all the weapons systems whose jobs got much easier because of the minefield.

I think we may be past tactical, at least for some areas. So denial is essentially the ability to impose an intolerable cost. It does not exert positive control over an area, it denies an opponent to establish control - a spoiler. Denial is very good a making an area or point in a campaign undecidable. I think in the air over Ukraine we are at operational denial, maybe even strategic. In this war I cannot even say that there is defence primacy as of yet. It may be too soon. But we can say we are seeing Denial primacy. The air domain is mutually denied above 2000 feet. Unmanned ISR combined with artillery and precision weapons is denying ground force mass for offence. The maritime domain has been denied as well. The Russian Navy has been forced back by cheap land to sea missile systems. We can see the intolerable cost whenever someone tries to go on the offensive. Cheap and everywhere is defeating firepower and manoeuvre. Russians were firing artillery at levels approaching WW1 last summer. They vastly overwhelmed the UA. Straight out of the Soviet playbook - fire to manoeuvre. They had massive firepower overmatch…and went nowhere. In fact they burned themselves out and got collapsed. So in a way traditional firepower is denied. The UA was to spread out and firing back with precision while Russian dumb massed fires were blowing up trees. Right now there is no easy work arounds. One cannot simply “establish air superiority” or “fires superiority”. One has to establish denial and then a level of asymmetry. Or better yet force an opponent into asymmetry. And don’t worry about Flimflam - I am pretty sure he isn’t following half of what I am talking about.

Firepower is anything but “a simple equation” (there we go with amateur reductionism). Russia had massive firepower advantage at Severodonetsk and was moving by inches. Simply being able to lob HE at and opponents in greater quantities is not even close to the firepower competition space. Nor will it break defensive or denial deadlocks by simple volume. Firepower has multiple dimensions - economy (cost vs payoff), range, precision, targeting, command and logistics, to name a few. As to trench warfare - it is a solution for the defender. It is a problem for the attacker. In order to not be pulled into an attritional slugfest an attacker must move. Position can break an opponent if it 1) can be done faster than an opponent can react and 2) if it breaks an opponents LOCs - this essentially cause an opponent into a condition where they break formation/organization while you retain your own. So in order to break a static defence one needs mobility and firepower - in the business we call that manoeuvre. Trench warfare is a symptom of defensive primacy, not a cause. What is causing defensive primacy - “Well just establish X superiority”. Gee wish we had thought of that. Superiority meet Denial. Right now we are trying to figure out what superiority means. Is it unmanned superiority? Is it data superiority? Is it precision superiority? At the same time we are seeing denial at scope and scales we are not really understanding. Force ratios and traditional metrics are all shot to hell in this war and probably will be for the next one. The problem now is that superiority is not working. Which was excellent news for Ukraine back in early ‘22. But not so good in summer 23. A lot of the problem is restructuring fire and manoeuvre to fit the texture of the modern battlefield. Neither side in this war has figured this out yet…but we are working on it.

Absolutely, if they exist. An unmanned UGV team - GPR to do recon and mapping. And follow ups to place shaped charges is a way better way to go but I don't think the tech is there. The breakout force for Kharkiv was Light and SOF, so that may be a better way to go if you could get them past the minefields. Or the heavy breaching stuff get a one time shot type of thing. Explosives still work but line charges are heavy and visible. The Soviet plan back in the day was tac nukes, but pretty sure that one is off the table.

Ya that is a really tricky point. Bridgehead teams can go in distributed so that is covered. Massing breaching teams is going to have to go in distributed and then concentrate rapidly. They will likely get picked up but signal might be hard to pull from noise. You can likely erode tac ISR but operational and strategic are too far back. As to guns, this will be the mother of all CB campaigns. So multiple breaches along the line, deception and decoys. Smoke. Still a mystery why they did not employ more smoke last summer. One can’t really hide AFVs, so put them in many places and leave the enemy guessing which one is the crossing. Hell you may have to put out decoy bridgehead teams. This is no small operation. And a lot of moving parts. Think Vimy Ridge are Cambrai - months to prepare for. And like those battles, it still might now work. Single biggest problem that is shutting all this down are UAS and transport platforms. I just don’t think the scale is available.

You could try, however the role of a bridgehead is to control the far side as much as possible in order to allow for a 5 min bounce breach. Normally we would do a silent patrol path breach and punch infantry up to sweep for ATGM but this is the 21st century. Infantry get detected and killed by UAS. Now if you sweep all UAS then you might be able to get away with it. By pushing JTA(G)Cs forward you get a C2 and targeting node forward. It can push your unmanned even further out. UGVs are not ready for fully autonomous so ground control forward will be better, especially as at ground level LOS gets trickier. They will likely push through UAS but why take the risk. Nothing stopping you from pushing human ATGM teams into the bridge head either. My sense is that UAS are not quite there and cannot be relied on to sweep the bridge head and contain it on their own. If they were the UA likely would have done it. Also as we get into comms lasers systems to avoid EW LOS becomes more important. Once the breach goes in the far bank crew become very important. They act as recon and guides to make sure the assault force does not wind up in another minefield and on preset rally positions. Next wave for next bridgehead would likely have to go out right after first one and possibly third. In the middle of combat one cannot have too many eyes or brains as far forward as possible. Coordinating and communicating, as well as seeing and understanding opportunity is key in all the chaos. If you wanna see what a breach without a bridgehead looks like just go back to that suicidal Russian assault back in November near Adviivka.

Travel ban is a serious escalation. We have an international framework of visas etc. To stop an average Russian citizen you basically are saying that they are all a national security risk. Without a blanket restriction like we saw in CODIV that is a pretty major step. It normally comes with breaking off diplomatic relations etc. You may see a tightening or bordering nation bans but you are basically looking at closing off the sky to Russian flights and the seas to Russian passenger ships. Now you can ban individuals on NS grounds. But every Russian citizen is basically dropping an Iron Curtain. Then you get into the humanitarian angle - families separated, health travel. Any and all trade by Russian's themselves. A mass travel ban is something I do not think we would see unless a NATO Article 5 were triggered in the run up to WW3. Enhanced restrictions for some individuals and groups but not wholesale. Again, we do not need to prove Putin correct in all this to contain him. The West is fighting to re-assert rules based international order, not crush Russia. The second we do look like we are crushing Russia (more so than we already are) it drives more support into Putin's camp.

Could also be like a NK shopping mall. A bunch of modern nice stuff that no one can actually afford: https://www.statista.com/statistics/276323/monthly-inflation-rate-in-russia/ https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/interest-rate https://take-profit.org/en/statistics/wages/russia/ https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/currency

Finally got some down time. Couple solid articles on the air war: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/airpower-after-ukraine/air-denial-the-dangerous-illusion-of-decisive-air-superiority/ https://warontherocks.com/2022/06/in-denial-about-denial-why-ukraines-air-success-should-worry-the-west/ Punchline: Denial...there is your problem. Long range high altitude AD drives AC to go low. These systems are getting faster and harder to suppress. When linked into C4ISR, they need only turn on to fire. Then turn off and bolt. Going low you run into a hornets nest of MANPADs.

Only way to achieve breakout. To do it all via deep strike one has to project corrosive warfare to the point the RA collapse. The UA already tried this and it worked in '22. But conditions have changed and it is not working on the current line. An all UAS/loitering assault is an idea - we bounced it around a few pages back - but I am not sure that it can be projected at a pace that the RA does not simply recover. The bar is so low to hold ground right now. And unlike a breaching operation, corrosive warfare would need to be much wider in scope and depth. So hundreds of kms not tens. I am not sure the UA could muster the drones or ammo to pull this off. And it may take years to culminate. So while I am a fan of the idea of corrosive warfare, I am not sure we are there yet. Now tightened around breaches to essentially create tactical collapse around those minefields, and we might have a ballgame.

Ah you hit on the critical part of all this. Main ground force breach and link up. I am not even sure what that ground force would look like - could be IFVs and tanks, could be medium/light but it needs to be mounted and ready to move quickly. So lets say we have three 500m minefield belts in front of us in say 5km of depth. Specifically designed to slow and attrit. Defended by all the stuff I posted earlier. Phase 1 - Recon. ISR the living crap out of the place. Do not prosecute targets yet, map them. Map networks, control nodes and c-move routes in depth. Phase 2 - Suppress. C-UAS, C-EW, C-everything you can see. You need to do this in multiple places or the enemy is going to know exactly where to prepare. Here CB will be critical. Phase 3 - Isolate. You want to cut off the 5x1 breaching operation, so think 5x10. You need to cut C4ISR and c-moves. Here our own FASCAM and Deep Strike will be critical. Phase 4 - Bridgehead X-ing. Combination of air mobility systems - jetpacks, quadcopters etc. Push JTA(G)Cs, UGVs and weapons to the far side of first minefield. Out to 1-2 kms. Night, smoke and suppression anyway one can. Phase 5. Establish bridge head. Set those JTA(G)Cs loose and hunt every ATGM team. Cut off any c-moves. Phase 6. Breach. Main ground force has about 5 mins to crack that minefield. Explosive and mechanical. And this would be after a thorough recon. Phase 7 - Rinse and repeat. You have already set local conditions. Sustain them and move fast. Next bridge head force bounces next minefield. Next breaching wave (another 5 mins). Add that all up and theoretically one could do it in maybe an hour so now you have the isolation window. You are basically killing anything looking to move into that box from well out. HIMARs and deep strike on logistics nodes. Good news is most RA are moving by trucks. Tanks and IFVs are still out there so those UGVs need Javelins. Trickiest part is enemy ATGM teams. If you miss a few (and you will) you will need redundant breaches built in. But more importantly you need to be able to spot and kill those teams, likely with FPVs very quickly. This whole dance is not easy or cheap. But if you can sustain momentum, you could have a mounted breakout force on the outer edge of this belt in about 60 mins by my calcs. You would need to drill it. You would need to enable it and empower it. It would cost a helluva lot of money. And it still may fail. But so far it is the best idea I have heard. One might be able to do it from afar with nothing more than a swarm of UAS, but I am not sure the tech is there yet with respect to endurance. Human and UGV pairing gives the ability to hold those bridge heads. C2 forward means you can react faster. Finally...and here is the real rub: you need to do this in several places at the same time. Overload RA C2 which is likely very comfortably static right now. Force a manoeuvre decision on them and then layer it with friction. Let them make the mistake. Once you get break out, you have whole new set of problems but minefields might not be one of them. And damn won't the post-war movie be epic. Now whether it is a drama, tragedy or comedy is up to the Red God.

So to my mind these would not be "infantry" that would be hopping. They would be JTA(G)C teams. If you push them out 1-2kms you can then get human-based C2 nodes to push UAS/UGV further out. Keep doing that in waves until the Ground Force can breach through and pick up that unmanned cloud for breakout. This is really a blend of a special and conventional op.

I guess my concern is what happens if Trump does get elected but a state refuses to recognize it because he was never on their ballot? Of course if the US actually votes in a guy quoting Mein Kampf in campaign speeches...who then buddies up to Putin who is fighting an illegal "de-nazification" war in Ukraine. I mean how weird does it need to get?

Option 5. Go defence. Play into attrition and corrosion. Hope your opponent breaks before you do. There is a "Go Under" as was tried in WW1 but I am honestly not sure what that would look like. "Go around" could include amphib ops via the Black Sea but that is a lot of capability to try and build.

Last war where dumb mines play a role perhaps - but I suspect they will still be used because they are cheap. So the counter is obviously smart mines that can relocate or conduct stand-off attacks. As well as target and kill those other UGV clearing systems. Again we are back to an unmanned outer edge battle with UGVs as part of that landscape.

This is where @billbindc comes and tell us it is all going to be ok? Because my civil war warning light just went off like a badger in a rocket suit.

I would pay you good money for a real badger in a little rocket outfit. I mean seriously…

So I am not sure everyone understand the problem with these minefields. I mean yes the splodey mines are bad but what is stopping the UA is a combination of things: - minefields in depth. High density monsters about 500m deep and laid in belts. They no doubt have AP strips and combinations of mines - pressure plate, tilt rod and likely some magnetic impulse. On their own midfields can be breached with some risk but what makes them harder are stuff like ditches and dragons teeth - we call these complex minefields. - ATGM teams. Even RA ATGMs are long range, small and relatively portable and able to take out western gear. The RA are using these teams to cover the minefields and counter breaching attempts. The UA are doing the same thing as was demonstrated in that interview with the Bn commander a page or so back. - Artillery. Even though it has been blunted, artillery is still a major killer particularly in minefields. This is due to the fact that breaching forces an opponent to canalized into a narrow column. - Unmanned. UAS are able to see far and from a lot of different angles. This makes them really hard to smoke off. These systems basically become a tactical ISR net that can queue all the defensive systems across a minefield. - Other support. Here sniping tanks, IFVs and even AH can be pulled forward (based on ISR queuing) to pre-sighted positions. AD of course is denying the airspace above 2000 feet. So you add all this up and breaching becomes near impossible. The layering of system’s guarantees the breaching team and covering forces get detected well out and engaged. Lone columns of vehicles get picked off. Lead breaching systems taken out and everyone else gets taken out by mines and artillery. So how does one try and solve this problem? Well the breaching is actually the last step in the process, not the first. - Recon. One needs to be able to see and identify as much of the defence as possible. And in depth. - C-artillery. The UA was and will need to do a lot of CB to suppress artillery and artillery TA systems. - Deep strike. Look for and find the supporting systems, like sniping tanks, before they can get into position. - ATGM teams. Suppress with artillery and drones as much as possible. Ok, the UA likely tried all this and still went nowhere. Why? “Because infantry protect tanks!” Kinda hard to do when one has to cross a half a kilometre of open minefield to even get at the problem. Enemy UAS can pick up sapper breaching teams trying to do it silently but very slowly. Bull charging on foot is a good way to get a bunch of people killed to no effect. So the problem is getting a bridgehead force across the minefield to clear those ATGM teams, counter against any armor and push any C-UAS capability forward. That force will likely be infantry heavy but should include a mix of UAS and UGV. Air Assault with helicopters is suicide because they are too big, hot and denied. So one needs speed and a way over (or under) the minefield because there is no “around”. A major airborne operation is not crazy but once again you need air superiority which is not likely. So we are at: how does one get a bridgehead force across with enough eyes and firepower to protect the breach? In a perfect world the breach would go in, reset push forward and one would redo the entire process at the next minefield as quickly as possible. So you don’t have to do this once, you likely need to do it a half dozen times…as quickly as possible. No bad idea time. But trust me, there is no real conventional way around this problem. A massed UAS strike that includes c-UAS systems appears to be a start point. But there is little room for error. A single ATGM takes out the lead breaching vehicle and an entire platoon/company crossing may fail. The consequences are high - as in, the UA does not advance in 2024 - high. Discuss.

This has to be AI generated. And damn if they aren’t adorable.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK224565/#:~:text=Brass flakes are used in,those are not in use. https://www.rheinmetall.com/en/products/protection-systems/protection-systems-land/smoke-protection-systems Been around for decades. They knew TI would be a problem back in the Cold War. Fog messes with it too. Still would have to push their UAS back. For a quick crossing one could probably take the risk. Vehicles are also damn hot but much slower. After the steady stream of troops getting roasted in their own vehicles, I would take my chances in the air. Again, would need to be a multi-platform system. And UGVs, need those. Light and fast. Edit: doing some quick math. Specs for jet packs say top speed of 85 mph. Rounded that down a bit to account for extra weight and nighttime - to about 30 m/s. So in 60 sec we are taking 1800m. From experience it takes an armoured breaching team about 3-5 minutes to try and breach a 500m minefield - assuming no problems. But at these densities, expect problems.

As opposed to being in a vehicle full of diesel and a big hot thermal signature? We saw how well that worked out on both sides. Take my chances with the jet pack…at least you get one cool ride. Trick will be setting pre-conditions and to keep the jump short. Like 60 seconds. Do it at night and with smoke and you might stand a chance of getting a recon force across. But hey if someone else has a better idea…mutant badgers? Water cannon?

No I don’t think that was the point of his post. He wasn’t calling for a direct evidence of every Israeli death. He was highlighting that there was no evidence of Hamas’ most alleged brutal crimes. I think his point was that over inflation of that brutality is being some used to give license to IDF potential warcrimes - which frankly are starting to stack up. In the end I would not be surprised if Hamas did some pretty horrible stuff and the reports of 7 Oct are actually true to a greater or lesser extent. It also does not matter. Warcrimes do not justify more warcrimes legally or morally. A beheaded Israeli baby is just as dead as a Palestinian one how had a JDAMs dropped on them. And we have seen plenty of dismembered Palestinian children…hell it is with our morning coffee now. The IDF should be held to higher standard than Hamas. They are supposed to be the good guys. Now we have reports of the IDF shooting aid agencies, their own people and vigilante actions against Palestinians in the West Bank. As soon as we cannot tell who the good guys are anymore we are basically at Sudan where @sshats on both sides are waging war illegally. This of course is a problem with sustaining international support and at some point even the US is going to draw back. Like when pictures of starving Palestinians are flashed up on the news, or another massacre. What is truly disturbing is that our primary democratic partner in the Middle East not only completely dropped the ball leading up to 7 Oct, they are driving the follow on operation into a crater. We are finally hearing reports that the Israeli justice system is starting to get engaged (you know, the one Netanyahu tried to castrate). So we may see some action. But right now Israel looks out of control and is making things so much worse.

Hit mainstream about an hour ago: https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/ukraine-s-military-asks-for-additional-450-000-people-to-be-mobilized-zelenskyy-1.6693711

Main advantage of jet packs is likely size (and possibly speed). They are a lot smaller than this vehicle and pretty quick. But why not have both and use this for lifting equipment and supplies? This whole thing is basically a vertical flanking like air assault or airborne but distributed.