The_Capt

Or the Baba Yaga is carrying a dozen smart sub munitions the size of DPICM, and you simply overwhelm the APS system. Or stick a SMART like EFP stand off weapon on the Baba and kill the tank with an explosive-formed kinetic penetration from 200ms away.
The overall problem is that miniaturization, explosive materials and processing power-to-weight are conspiring towards killing large hard to defend platforms. Meanwhile shielding mechanisms are lagging because while offence can be wrong a hundred times at low cost, defence can only be wrong once at very high cost.

Or the Baba Yaga is carrying a dozen smart sub munitions the size of DPICM, and you simply overwhelm the APS system. Or stick a SMART like EFP stand off weapon on the Baba and kill the tank with an explosive-formed kinetic penetration from 200ms away.
The overall problem is that miniaturization, explosive materials and processing power-to-weight are conspiring towards killing large hard to defend platforms. Meanwhile shielding mechanisms are lagging because while offence can be wrong a hundred times at low cost, defence can only be wrong once at very high cost.

We have the Lynx, which if one squints could pass for an M114.  But these will be in the Canadian TOEs

As we are expanding back to 1976 for BOAR, I can say that the Sheridan is definitely on the wish list of new vehicles.  And our wish list is looking good.
Oh and thanks for the kind words on Lions ‘79….

So that is how you are translating Macron’s position?  That France is so invested in Ukraine that it is willing to risk nuclear war and direct French involvement in this war rather than let Ukraine fall?
Well first off that is simply not true. Macron, who btw in a liberal democracy does not represent all French people everywhere, is proposing we take another rung up an escalation ladder to shore up Ukraine and demonstrate resolve.  If he were so invested in Ukraine to the point that this war is indeed existential to France then we would likely be seeing French formations in Ukrainian already. 
This war definitely has an impact on European security.  In fact it is pretty clear that European security has already been destabilized by Russia violation of international order.  However, your argument is also sucking and blowing at the same time.  You argue that Russia winning in Ukraine is existential, but that threat will somehow fracture the alliances designed to counter that threat.  That is not how things work.  Russia success, which frankly is a pretty long shot, would drive nations together within NATO because of the increasing insecurity, not pull them apart.  We have seen this effect already with Sweden and Finland.
Further Macron is not right - you are immediately saying that he is because it supports your position (somewhat).  Nor are his motives pure.  Macron is playing the French power card for domestic consumption.  He is making a move to be seen as a leader within Europe in this perpetual echo of the 20th century.  He is using this war as an opportunity.  Again of France was truly “all in” then as a free nation, there would already be French troops in Ukraine in force.  Macron is posturing and signaling to effect.
The fact that you somehow translate this as “Hey France is ok with nuclear brinksmanship over Ukraine” really demonstrates where your thinking is at in this matter.  You are free to have and express your opinion but my position is that you are wrong.  Ukraine is very important.  The West still has escalation room and may use it.  But we are not going to risk a full on direct war with Russia over Ukraine without a concomitant direct attack by Russia on NATO.  We already did WW1 - where the world got pulled into a conflagration over a small power - in the nuclear age this is not an option.
Macron is free to posture and even escalate unilaterally.  But Ukraine does not pose an existential threat to either Europe or NATO, no matter what rhetoric is employed.  In fact the existential threat Macron refers to is a loss of security guarantees from the US, which is a whole other thing.  The threat is a global power vacuum if the US contracts due to domestic politics - the leading Republican candidate is a convicted criminal FFS. This entire thing is no longer even about Ukraine, it is about European security in a post-US world. That is a much larger problem that a glorious victory in Ukraine will not solve, but a defeat may create a forcing function.
My honest opinion, and has been for some time, is that you are staring far too hard at this one war.  It has become unhealthy and bordering on obsession. From your comments for some time now, the future of all humanity seems to hang on this conflict.  This has skewed your logic into very dangerous waters but if the only lens you apply to international relations is Ukraine then it probably makes sense.  My honest advice is to maybe take a break from this and look up and around. There are other things happening in the world other than this war. The primary strategy of every major power has been to contain it, manage it and push for the best outcome we can - not full on direct involvement which would come with expansion.

Exactly. So let’s take that Ukrainian trench problem. That is a full scale battalion assault problem.  As per western doctrine we would assign a full battlegroup/TF to that job.  3x infantry Coys, Tanks, Engineers, close support.  That is roughly 50 F ech vehicles.  I do not think people appreciate how much real estate and road space that sort of force takes.  The there is the added logistics support behind it. We are talking about a force likely in and around 100 vehicles all up.
So in this environment 100 vehicles concentrating are going to get picked up maybe 20-30 kms out.  Nobody has vehicle parks closer than 100kms because they are prime targets for HIMARs.  So you pull 100 vehicles together to organize and mount this attack - that is a coupe major road moves.  Now the UA is supported by ISR from God.  AI support can pick out patterns. Space-based, strategic high flyers and operational stand off - all of this before the tac drones even kick in.  At best 100 vehicles are going to be spotted 10s of kms out and if you are really lucky won’t get hit by long range fires. But the UA knows you are coming and has plenty of time to swing resources to meet them.  
Once you cross the line of departure you can expect long range drones, loitering munitions, PGM artillery etc to hit you before you even get into DF range. You are a big force so the UA is going to muster a lot in your direction. Then you get within DF range and the tac FPVs and ATGMs kick in - hell, the UA might even send a sniper tank or two your way.
You have no surprise. Concentration has brought concentrated fires. Your logistical lines are vulnerable and being hit.  And the enemy can see you, down to the squad level the entire way,  air support is denied, except maybe for bomb lobbing from 50kms out. This is not that the Russians have somehow forgotten how to put a Bn into an attack. It is that to try and do so is suicidal.  So what do they do?  Penny packet, disperse and try smaller attacks on separate axis.  Of course then you simply do not have enough troops to do much even if you them through to an objective.  So what do you do?  Send in wave to try and exhaust the UA and take small bites.

Definitely intense and crazy, but isn’t this a bit of a self- confirming bias?  I mean if two sides are pushing IFVs at each other of course they are going to be seen using DF, those are the primary weapons on their main platforms.  If both sides sent out platoons armed with swords and we had video of them in a sword fight, it really isn’t evidence that swords are still applicable as a primary weapon (nod to the bayonet accepted).
I think DF will definitely still happen but it will happen more and more between an unmanned edge and after over the horizon fires have gone to work.  More to the point, direct fires are more likely going to be secondary fires, like we see in the maritime environment.  They can still happen but priority is on over the horizon systems.
If terrain is transparent and unmanned gives very long reach, land warfare is likely to evolve into something more akin to naval warfare.  Now naval warfare still has littorals and complex terrain (eg islands), which we will see in land warfare with urban areas.  But DF grudge fights are likely to happen less (as we have seen in this war) as land forces push engagement ranges much further out on an illuminated battlefield.

Exactly. So let’s take that Ukrainian trench problem. That is a full scale battalion assault problem.  As per western doctrine we would assign a full battlegroup/TF to that job.  3x infantry Coys, Tanks, Engineers, close support.  That is roughly 50 F ech vehicles.  I do not think people appreciate how much real estate and road space that sort of force takes.  The there is the added logistics support behind it. We are talking about a force likely in and around 100 vehicles all up.
So in this environment 100 vehicles concentrating are going to get picked up maybe 20-30 kms out.  Nobody has vehicle parks closer than 100kms because they are prime targets for HIMARs.  So you pull 100 vehicles together to organize and mount this attack - that is a coupe major road moves.  Now the UA is supported by ISR from God.  AI support can pick out patterns. Space-based, strategic high flyers and operational stand off - all of this before the tac drones even kick in.  At best 100 vehicles are going to be spotted 10s of kms out and if you are really lucky won’t get hit by long range fires. But the UA knows you are coming and has plenty of time to swing resources to meet them.  
Once you cross the line of departure you can expect long range drones, loitering munitions, PGM artillery etc to hit you before you even get into DF range. You are a big force so the UA is going to muster a lot in your direction. Then you get within DF range and the tac FPVs and ATGMs kick in - hell, the UA might even send a sniper tank or two your way.
You have no surprise. Concentration has brought concentrated fires. Your logistical lines are vulnerable and being hit.  And the enemy can see you, down to the squad level the entire way,  air support is denied, except maybe for bomb lobbing from 50kms out. This is not that the Russians have somehow forgotten how to put a Bn into an attack. It is that to try and do so is suicidal.  So what do they do?  Penny packet, disperse and try smaller attacks on separate axis.  Of course then you simply do not have enough troops to do much even if you them through to an objective.  So what do you do?  Send in wave to try and exhaust the UA and take small bites.

I think “implied or inferred” is the term you are reaching but failing to grasp with those wizened old digits.  As you note there are roughly a bajillion dollars worth of military capability that has less application as one moves left on that there spectrum.  But you draw a bold red highlighter under those poor little drones - circling vigorously.
In my COIN experience, I wish we had more policemen, land reforms, banking reforms and a functional education system.  Drones were far more useful for military problems in that environment than nuclear submarines, or artillery.  And yet you put the utility of drones into question as a primary issue.  This is skewed and biased assessment. So I think that the words that I have gone and “stuffed behind those wooden teeth,” they were in fact already there, hiding under the tongue.
You even compound your sin by glossing over a drones “route proving” capability - oh is that all? Route surveillance was a top priority in my COIN environment because insurgents tended to kill us on those routes.  So that puts drones on the mission critical list.  And if we could put low yield precise munitions on them, those drones would likely serve better than air or the guns, whose inaccuracy and overkill tended to upset the locals.
Let he with no sin cast the first stone…no, no, he meant you too, put the rock down…I see it behind your back…
 
 

Aw, remember when the Kharkiv thing was “the beginning of the end?” The RA was going to drive up from the south and “link up”?  Big red arrows all over the place?  Imminent Ukrainian collapse?
In the end more Russian leg humping; horrendous loses for next to zero gains.
 

Exactly. So let’s take that Ukrainian trench problem. That is a full scale battalion assault problem.  As per western doctrine we would assign a full battlegroup/TF to that job.  3x infantry Coys, Tanks, Engineers, close support.  That is roughly 50 F ech vehicles.  I do not think people appreciate how much real estate and road space that sort of force takes.  The there is the added logistics support behind it. We are talking about a force likely in and around 100 vehicles all up.
So in this environment 100 vehicles concentrating are going to get picked up maybe 20-30 kms out.  Nobody has vehicle parks closer than 100kms because they are prime targets for HIMARs.  So you pull 100 vehicles together to organize and mount this attack - that is a coupe major road moves.  Now the UA is supported by ISR from God.  AI support can pick out patterns. Space-based, strategic high flyers and operational stand off - all of this before the tac drones even kick in.  At best 100 vehicles are going to be spotted 10s of kms out and if you are really lucky won’t get hit by long range fires. But the UA knows you are coming and has plenty of time to swing resources to meet them.  
Once you cross the line of departure you can expect long range drones, loitering munitions, PGM artillery etc to hit you before you even get into DF range. You are a big force so the UA is going to muster a lot in your direction. Then you get within DF range and the tac FPVs and ATGMs kick in - hell, the UA might even send a sniper tank or two your way.
You have no surprise. Concentration has brought concentrated fires. Your logistical lines are vulnerable and being hit.  And the enemy can see you, down to the squad level the entire way,  air support is denied, except maybe for bomb lobbing from 50kms out. This is not that the Russians have somehow forgotten how to put a Bn into an attack. It is that to try and do so is suicidal.  So what do they do?  Penny packet, disperse and try smaller attacks on separate axis.  Of course then you simply do not have enough troops to do much even if you them through to an objective.  So what do you do?  Send in wave to try and exhaust the UA and take small bites.

Aw, remember when the Kharkiv thing was “the beginning of the end?” The RA was going to drive up from the south and “link up”?  Big red arrows all over the place?  Imminent Ukrainian collapse?
In the end more Russian leg humping; horrendous loses for next to zero gains.
 

Aw, remember when the Kharkiv thing was “the beginning of the end?” The RA was going to drive up from the south and “link up”?  Big red arrows all over the place?  Imminent Ukrainian collapse?
In the end more Russian leg humping; horrendous loses for next to zero gains.
 

Aw, remember when the Kharkiv thing was “the beginning of the end?” The RA was going to drive up from the south and “link up”?  Big red arrows all over the place?  Imminent Ukrainian collapse?
In the end more Russian leg humping; horrendous loses for next to zero gains.
 

Aw, remember when the Kharkiv thing was “the beginning of the end?” The RA was going to drive up from the south and “link up”?  Big red arrows all over the place?  Imminent Ukrainian collapse?
In the end more Russian leg humping; horrendous loses for next to zero gains.
 

Aw, remember when the Kharkiv thing was “the beginning of the end?” The RA was going to drive up from the south and “link up”?  Big red arrows all over the place?  Imminent Ukrainian collapse?
In the end more Russian leg humping; horrendous loses for next to zero gains.
 

Aw, remember when the Kharkiv thing was “the beginning of the end?” The RA was going to drive up from the south and “link up”?  Big red arrows all over the place?  Imminent Ukrainian collapse?
In the end more Russian leg humping; horrendous loses for next to zero gains.
 

Ground vehicles are going to need to start thinking about stealth:
https://www.iai.co.il/p/eli-2058-tactical-isr-aerial-system
 

Aw, remember when the Kharkiv thing was “the beginning of the end?” The RA was going to drive up from the south and “link up”?  Big red arrows all over the place?  Imminent Ukrainian collapse?
In the end more Russian leg humping; horrendous loses for next to zero gains.
 

Definitely intense and crazy, but isn’t this a bit of a self- confirming bias?  I mean if two sides are pushing IFVs at each other of course they are going to be seen using DF, those are the primary weapons on their main platforms.  If both sides sent out platoons armed with swords and we had video of them in a sword fight, it really isn’t evidence that swords are still applicable as a primary weapon (nod to the bayonet accepted).
I think DF will definitely still happen but it will happen more and more between an unmanned edge and after over the horizon fires have gone to work.  More to the point, direct fires are more likely going to be secondary fires, like we see in the maritime environment.  They can still happen but priority is on over the horizon systems.
If terrain is transparent and unmanned gives very long reach, land warfare is likely to evolve into something more akin to naval warfare.  Now naval warfare still has littorals and complex terrain (eg islands), which we will see in land warfare with urban areas.  But DF grudge fights are likely to happen less (as we have seen in this war) as land forces push engagement ranges much further out on an illuminated battlefield.

This right here.  You (and a few others) have framed this war in absolutist terms, early from the outset.  So if I hold that Ukraine is not worth a global nuclear war, this somehow means my position is that “Ukraine isn’t worth it to NATO to fall”.  Before I expressed frustration with Ukrainian Western bashing and was accused of promoting genocide.
Pure and utter BS.  You and others are substituting thought and analysis with dogma.  You over inflate this war to the point that there is no room for negotiation.  And then swing that stick around like a zealot.
My position was never that “Ukraine is not worth it to NATO.”  Considering the expense NATO nations are going to keep Ukraine in this war that statement is patently false and you should apologize for trying to assign it to me.  My position is that Ukraine is not worth uncontrolled nuclear escalation and here NATO very much agrees with me.  In fact nothing in France’s position reflects a shift towards this either.  However, to you, the US being nervous about Ukrainian strikes in Russia…on Russian nuclear infrastructure no less, is somehow “weak tea.”  You have lost the ability to see this war objectively - this much is very clear.
And now you appear to be supporting French incremental escalation, but for pages have been foot stamping against US incrementalism along the exact same lines.  Macron may be embarking on ramping up pressure, so is the US in green lighting strikes into Russia - this proves my point not whatever yours is (which frankly is not clear).
And here again.  We have already seen escalations - hell Baltic states are talking about troops on the ground in Western Ukraine. Nor have I ever said further escalation is off the table.  Your inability to see the difference between incremental escalation and dangerous reckless escalation is frankly astounding.  You have made the leap between Ukraine striking Russian nuclear tripwire infrastructure, and Macron threatening to send in trainers and support.  I would say you have lost the bubble but you are clearly inside one.

This right here.  You (and a few others) have framed this war in absolutist terms, early from the outset.  So if I hold that Ukraine is not worth a global nuclear war, this somehow means my position is that “Ukraine isn’t worth it to NATO to fall”.  Before I expressed frustration with Ukrainian Western bashing and was accused of promoting genocide.
Pure and utter BS.  You and others are substituting thought and analysis with dogma.  You over inflate this war to the point that there is no room for negotiation.  And then swing that stick around like a zealot.
My position was never that “Ukraine is not worth it to NATO.”  Considering the expense NATO nations are going to keep Ukraine in this war that statement is patently false and you should apologize for trying to assign it to me.  My position is that Ukraine is not worth uncontrolled nuclear escalation and here NATO very much agrees with me.  In fact nothing in France’s position reflects a shift towards this either.  However, to you, the US being nervous about Ukrainian strikes in Russia…on Russian nuclear infrastructure no less, is somehow “weak tea.”  You have lost the ability to see this war objectively - this much is very clear.
And now you appear to be supporting French incremental escalation, but for pages have been foot stamping against US incrementalism along the exact same lines.  Macron may be embarking on ramping up pressure, so is the US in green lighting strikes into Russia - this proves my point not whatever yours is (which frankly is not clear).
And here again.  We have already seen escalations - hell Baltic states are talking about troops on the ground in Western Ukraine. Nor have I ever said further escalation is off the table.  Your inability to see the difference between incremental escalation and dangerous reckless escalation is frankly astounding.  You have made the leap between Ukraine striking Russian nuclear tripwire infrastructure, and Macron threatening to send in trainers and support.  I would say you have lost the bubble but you are clearly inside one.

Exactly. So let’s take that Ukrainian trench problem. That is a full scale battalion assault problem.  As per western doctrine we would assign a full battlegroup/TF to that job.  3x infantry Coys, Tanks, Engineers, close support.  That is roughly 50 F ech vehicles.  I do not think people appreciate how much real estate and road space that sort of force takes.  The there is the added logistics support behind it. We are talking about a force likely in and around 100 vehicles all up.
So in this environment 100 vehicles concentrating are going to get picked up maybe 20-30 kms out.  Nobody has vehicle parks closer than 100kms because they are prime targets for HIMARs.  So you pull 100 vehicles together to organize and mount this attack - that is a coupe major road moves.  Now the UA is supported by ISR from God.  AI support can pick out patterns. Space-based, strategic high flyers and operational stand off - all of this before the tac drones even kick in.  At best 100 vehicles are going to be spotted 10s of kms out and if you are really lucky won’t get hit by long range fires. But the UA knows you are coming and has plenty of time to swing resources to meet them.  
Once you cross the line of departure you can expect long range drones, loitering munitions, PGM artillery etc to hit you before you even get into DF range. You are a big force so the UA is going to muster a lot in your direction. Then you get within DF range and the tac FPVs and ATGMs kick in - hell, the UA might even send a sniper tank or two your way.
You have no surprise. Concentration has brought concentrated fires. Your logistical lines are vulnerable and being hit.  And the enemy can see you, down to the squad level the entire way,  air support is denied, except maybe for bomb lobbing from 50kms out. This is not that the Russians have somehow forgotten how to put a Bn into an attack. It is that to try and do so is suicidal.  So what do they do?  Penny packet, disperse and try smaller attacks on separate axis.  Of course then you simply do not have enough troops to do much even if you them through to an objective.  So what do you do?  Send in wave to try and exhaust the UA and take small bites.

This right here.  You (and a few others) have framed this war in absolutist terms, early from the outset.  So if I hold that Ukraine is not worth a global nuclear war, this somehow means my position is that “Ukraine isn’t worth it to NATO to fall”.  Before I expressed frustration with Ukrainian Western bashing and was accused of promoting genocide.
Pure and utter BS.  You and others are substituting thought and analysis with dogma.  You over inflate this war to the point that there is no room for negotiation.  And then swing that stick around like a zealot.
My position was never that “Ukraine is not worth it to NATO.”  Considering the expense NATO nations are going to keep Ukraine in this war that statement is patently false and you should apologize for trying to assign it to me.  My position is that Ukraine is not worth uncontrolled nuclear escalation and here NATO very much agrees with me.  In fact nothing in France’s position reflects a shift towards this either.  However, to you, the US being nervous about Ukrainian strikes in Russia…on Russian nuclear infrastructure no less, is somehow “weak tea.”  You have lost the ability to see this war objectively - this much is very clear.
And now you appear to be supporting French incremental escalation, but for pages have been foot stamping against US incrementalism along the exact same lines.  Macron may be embarking on ramping up pressure, so is the US in green lighting strikes into Russia - this proves my point not whatever yours is (which frankly is not clear).
And here again.  We have already seen escalations - hell Baltic states are talking about troops on the ground in Western Ukraine. Nor have I ever said further escalation is off the table.  Your inability to see the difference between incremental escalation and dangerous reckless escalation is frankly astounding.  You have made the leap between Ukraine striking Russian nuclear tripwire infrastructure, and Macron threatening to send in trainers and support.  I would say you have lost the bubble but you are clearly inside one.

This right here.  You (and a few others) have framed this war in absolutist terms, early from the outset.  So if I hold that Ukraine is not worth a global nuclear war, this somehow means my position is that “Ukraine isn’t worth it to NATO to fall”.  Before I expressed frustration with Ukrainian Western bashing and was accused of promoting genocide.
Pure and utter BS.  You and others are substituting thought and analysis with dogma.  You over inflate this war to the point that there is no room for negotiation.  And then swing that stick around like a zealot.
My position was never that “Ukraine is not worth it to NATO.”  Considering the expense NATO nations are going to keep Ukraine in this war that statement is patently false and you should apologize for trying to assign it to me.  My position is that Ukraine is not worth uncontrolled nuclear escalation and here NATO very much agrees with me.  In fact nothing in France’s position reflects a shift towards this either.  However, to you, the US being nervous about Ukrainian strikes in Russia…on Russian nuclear infrastructure no less, is somehow “weak tea.”  You have lost the ability to see this war objectively - this much is very clear.
And now you appear to be supporting French incremental escalation, but for pages have been foot stamping against US incrementalism along the exact same lines.  Macron may be embarking on ramping up pressure, so is the US in green lighting strikes into Russia - this proves my point not whatever yours is (which frankly is not clear).
And here again.  We have already seen escalations - hell Baltic states are talking about troops on the ground in Western Ukraine. Nor have I ever said further escalation is off the table.  Your inability to see the difference between incremental escalation and dangerous reckless escalation is frankly astounding.  You have made the leap between Ukraine striking Russian nuclear tripwire infrastructure, and Macron threatening to send in trainers and support.  I would say you have lost the bubble but you are clearly inside one.