c3k

Attack Helos and Russia's Ka-52 losses (and US Army Apache debacle when overflying an Iraqi Guards unit...): Yes, drones and loitering munitions can and will do much of what Attack Helos do. Is their time over? I don't think so. The effectiveness of the Ukrainian defense can be ascribed to Russians using the same ingress/egress routes. Remember, all Manpads require a cooldown time. If you're predictable, or orbiting or hovering in LOS, you're gonna get fired upon. AH-64D with mast-mounted sight allows defilade observation and firing. Of course, the helo needs to know when and where to use that defilade. Route planning is a critical tactical skill. Would a platoon commander on a raid behind enemy lines exit out on the same path he entered in? Well, only if he wants to get ambushed (or is Russian). Having said all that, yes, the environment to operate Attack Helos is getting more difficult. The man-on-scene still has a role to play. It could be that role would be to control a drone swarm/anti-drone swarm and THEN use its weaponry... (A single Switchblade 600 can take out a single vehicle. An Apache can take out 16. (Or launch 16/32/64 Switchblade 600s. The lift represented by an Attack Helo is significant.)

^^^ Above video: At ~1:27 mark, an AFV is obviously hit and a big piece (ammo?) comes arcing up and out, trailing a smoke line. It then hits inside the treeline. I was thinking, if that were happening to me in CM, that piece of debris would've landed on my most important unit and killed it. On topic: the plinking aspect of that video (120mm mortar?) is amazing. I wonder how many Russians were still manning their vehicles while that occurred? It has edits/cuts, so there's no way to tell how much time it took.

There is a big shift towards unmanned aerial combat vehicles, a fancy name for unmanned fighters. The Loyal Wingman program is a precursor. Removing the pilot from the airframe frees up a ton of weight...literally. Pilot, ejection seat, life support gear, instruments: that's roughly a ton of weight. And, you're no longer limited to 9g (and that only for short times). (And, one ton at 9gs means 18,000lbs of structure that does not have to be accounted for...or could be replaced with weapons, fuel, sensors, etc.) The language is still catching up to the technology. Drone, quad, kamikaze, loitering munition, weapon truck, UCAV, etc... Optionally-manned equipment in combat is going to happen, both on the ground and in the air (as well as on/under the sea). These innovations will prove crucial when we battle Space Lobsters. (Hey, you're still planning on making that, right?)

Pretty much anything by LazerPig is worth watching. Hilarious...but with a point.

My bold. Yeah, that was me that linked this from Military History Visualized. As to your points, here's a counterpoint: your UGV IS the next tank. It is the essence of mobile direct firepower. No one ever said the crew has to be inside it.

^^^ My bold, above. The Russian doctrine has been shown to be deeply flawed. They not only need to come up with a new doctrine, but they need to re-equip based on that doctrine, and re-train based on it. Oh, and whatever that new doctrine will be? If they want it to be an EFFECTIVE doctrine, they will game it out, test it, stress it, and modify it as needed. It would be very difficult for any nation to do this within 5 years...if it's a nation willing to self-examination and critical, truthful, review. Russia is none of these. Putin (because he is the driving force here) MUST attack. He's lost too much not to keep going. Can you imagine the internal dialogue going on right now? No general will say, "Pull back to the borders and sue for peace." They'll get replaced and, if they're lucky, just fired. As can be seen by the Black Sea Fleet admiral, defeat is being blamed on the individual in command. This is not the atmosphere that is conducive to being flexible with doctrine.

A good video from Military History Visualized about the oft-mentioned end of the tank due to ATGMs seen in this conflict.

Turning away from the current nuclear escalation/destabilization thread, and back to the Moskva. Moskva being unable to track more than one inbound target, in the current era, is something that is unbelievable to any Western concept of naval warship design. However, this is a characteristic of many Soviet/Russian designs: a bare, base, capability that never gets upgraded. A case in point is the Kh-31P, the Russian HARM-ski, anti-radiation missile. On paper, this variant of the Kh-31 is very capable. A Mach 3, ramjet powered, anti-radar missile. It does have one, rather huge, Achilles' heal: the seeker can only detect and track ONE FREQUENCY. And, better yet, that frequency can only be tuned at the factory. We in the West will frequently assume a level of technology, competency, and manufacturing that simply does not exist in Russia.

I'll second the book recommendation. Great read. No way was it other than a planned hammer-blow with great hopes on its success.

LOL...no idea. All I can verify is that it is reported.

Thanks for the insight, and welcome aboard.

The USAF has pretty much acknowledged that the achieving Air Supremacy in a near-Peer (or higher) conflict will not be possible. (Think WWII, late '44 to '45 over the Western Front when Allied Air Forces could operate with impunity anywhere, anytime.) Instead, Air Superiority (think Air Supremacy, but time- and location- limited, e.g., control the airspace over Luhansk for 2 hours) is the goal. Doctrinally, that should also encompass the use of UAVs by allied forces and the denial of such use to enemy forces. Easy to write up on a piece of paper, much harder to actually practice. ^^^ The prevalence of distributed comms, with independent unit operations aligned towards a common goal, are the huge disruptors in the current war...and UA is winning that Information fight. Remember, information dominance (which includes communications) is always a two-way channel. The idea of drone swarms is great...until you realize the difficulties inherent in having dozens/hundreds of nodes in the same space. It needs to be solved in a robust and redundant manner.

Oh, the inhumanity! Think about the felines! See, some of YOU have cats. See how close this war is to YOU? Give me a break. (Oh, "rabidly"? C'mon, that was a cool piece of literary art, using that term in juxtaposition to a (feral?) cat image. I'd imagine they were drooling and couldn't control themselves. )

^^^ (and fixed that for you with the bold) This. It's nauseating at (most?) times. Someone, in this thread, posted a picture of a horde of "journalists" clustered around a cat and rabidly filming it, while they were in the midst of some destruction in a Ukrainian city. To them, the cat was more important than anything else in that situation.

Umm...are you saying Putin ignored the law? (I'm so not going to repost my earlier comments about how Putin is not constrained by the law or say something like "I told you so". )

^^^ Regarding Xi, and China's renewed push for more nukes. What Putin's invasion of Russia has shown is the need for the West to put their troops in friendly territory to show commitment and resolve. Would Putin have green-lighted the invasion if there were several NATO brigades doing "training and familiarization" in eastern Ukriane? Think about setting several USMC battalions in Taiwan on a "friendship tour". The post-invasion rush of PGMs to Ukraine should also be a lesson. To protect Taiwain, a PRE-invasion flood of PGMs would be appropriate. This would be a strategic counter to the PRC's expansionism in the South China Sea. Back to Ukraine: The 100-200k reserves that are expected to start arriving on the battlefield soon...how will they be integrated into the fight? Will they plus-up the existing formations, or get plugged in directly (and have to learn the lessons endemic to all green units when first in the line)? How many NLAWs/Javelines/Drones are left for Ukraine to use? Are they sufficient to beef up the entire east front, or will they be pushed to proven units? Will they use the attritional approach, maneuver, or a combination? I agree that Russia has lost their strategic aims, but there's still a LOT of fight left in this war.

...continuing on with HOW to describe political philosophies (and NOT talking about which is better or worse)... I'll use shorthand for my continuum: the Total Control will be TC and Total Freedom TF, thus: TC----------> ----TF I'll contend that a form a Fascism has the same limited freedoms as a form of Marxism, thus: TC-----> Fascism/Marxism ------TF Yet, there are some differences in the root ideologies of Fascism and Marxism. Most of those can be expressed by how they value or allow private ownership of businesses (or the "means of production", Lolz...). Let's introduce a vertical axis to represent private ownership/property rights vs. collective/government ownership/lack of property rights Now we have a two dimensional way to describe (or plot) different forms of government. (FWIW, I found this continuum years ago. I started researching this after someone couldn't define "neo-con" or "alt-right" after using them repeatedly in a conversation. The more I dug, the more I found that most people get confused when you ask them what defines left-wing vs. right-wing. The Control/Freedom measure is NOT mine...but it is the most useful I've found.) We can talk about other dimensions later.

Picking what I bolded... How does your definition of "right" correspond with "right wing fascism" or Nazism? (Is Nazism a left-wing or right-wing political ideology in your view?) Ahh, picking and choosing implies a choice. I'm not going to get into a debate on which politic is "better" or "worse" than another. Just about how to describe them. ^^^ Was Pinochet's administration a right-wing government or a left-wing government? If left-wing is opposite to right-wing, how can they meet around the back side of a spectrum? I firmly believe that the currently accepted left-wing/right-wing is intentionally confusing. I think a control/freedom spectrum is LESS confusing.

WHOA. I think I see where you and I have miscommunicated. In no way shape or form did I convey (or intend to convey) that "the political right" is an alias for "freedom" or vice versa. Leaning left/right needs to be defined. What do you mean when you say "political right"? What about "political left"? How do you tell the two apart?

...continued. Total control of the individual by government ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- complete unfettered individual freedom That's the yardstick. Now, we can expand into more dimensions later (and we'll need to), but for now, let's keep it linear. Other descriptions talk about a circle with the "right" (<- whatever that means) bending around and meeting the "left". Those rely upon arcane descriptors, puzzling dialectic, and nuanced doctoral theses relegated to dusty shelves in academia. Similarly, there are "horseshoes", etc. But, as I said, let's use the above linear descriptor for now. "Complete unfettered individual freedom" is akin to, if not actually defined as, anarchy. That doesn't work. It devolves almost immediately into violence. For protection, individuals then gather into trusted groups. Usually you trust your family. Then you get clans, etc. We can delve into those forms later.

Excellent! Let me begin. Ignore EVERYTHING about left and right that you've heard before. One such thing (to be ignored) is Left wing is liberal and right wing is...something else. By their own definition, Communists are the furthest left form of government. (According to the linear left/right to be ignored. ) Fascists were described by the communists as being "right wing". Well, of course: EVERYTHING is to the "right" of communism. And, what is liberalism? Are we speaking of modern American liberalism where you get "cancelled" if you don't adhere to the ideology or, even worse, are accuse of heresy? Or are we speaking of classical liberalism? Shrug. As I stated, ignore all that crap. Instead, start with your linear comparison, but replace the left with "control" and the right with "freedom". More...

Russian offense: Yes, one is in the works. Izyum as the northern "breakthrough" sector for the pincer from the north. From the south? Well...they're not doing as well. But, they will try something. The goal will be to endanger the large Ukrainian salient in the east. The result: a long front, dug in, with a stalemate. This will allow Putin to declare victory. He'll have gained territory, "protected" the enclaves of Luhansk and Donetsk (solidified Crimea); he'll lay claim to the resources in that region. If Ukraine/West want him to cede the territory, they'll have to offer something up...like easing the sanctions, etc. (No NATO in Ukraine, etc.) Then, he'll "compromise" and pull back to a location still beyond where the post-2014 frontline was. (I say "frontline" NOT "border" because that was an illegal occupation/invasion by Russia in 2014). The counter? Ukraine has to decisively smash any Russian offensive AND gain back much (all?) of the territory it lost since February 24th. The first part is within their capabilities (as long as supplies continue getting to their forces, like ATGMs.) The second part, regaining their territory will be much harder and longer to do. My prediction: I see the Russian offense being stalled/smashed. Putin digs in, makes his declarations. The West (hopefully) stays firm in the sanctions and starts prosecuting the warcrimes and atrocities committed by Putin's forces. Meanwhile, Ukraine uses a nibble and take strategy to slowly win back its territory, a small parcel at a time. The combat will continue for about 2 years, most of it being akin to WWI trench raids. My hope: Russian offensive is a bloody failure. Ukrainian forces route them. There is widespread morale collapse. Ukraine is able to leverage its reserve manpower and resources from the West and, using well-placed mini-offensives, retake all its territory, up to and including the pre-2014 Ukrainian border.

Looks like ~8 men running down the trench together and sheltering in one area. That...is scary. One shell dropped right there (yeah, odds) would take them ALL out. Regarding the "looking like WWI" comment. Yeah, and watching that, it shows why having bomb-proof shelters at certain intervals in a trench were so important.

(The above references the video of the Russian artillery unit being shelled, slowly, as they attempt to set up and the Ukraine solution of distributing their firing units into small 1 or 2 gun units for survivability.) Software is important, but most important, is communications. Let's say the Ukrainian artillery has a 4x 2 gun units, separated. The goal is to get salvoes of 8 shots to drop on the target simultaneously. If the shooters all have separate drones, how do they coordinate which drone to use for targeting? They need a way to prioritize targets that are found by roving drones. What unit operates the drone, determines targets, determines shooters is a real issue. (If each shooter has their own drone, again, that shooter needs to communicate with the other shooters...and convince them it is a target worth them risking exposure and counterfires for them to engage...at a time convenient to all the other shooters.) Next is the problem of which target point each shooter will engage. How many shots per target point? What will the next target point be? The final part, figuring out the exact timing of the shoot for simultaneous effects, is reasonably simple. Coordinating dispersed units is actually quite difficult. It all hinges on robust comms and a pre-arranged system of targeting.

Lolz... It is a different perspective. As such it cannot be "plain wrong". And it is one that is much more internally consistent and does not require nuanced dialectic to describe the differences in various forms of government. As mentioned elsewhere, adding a dimension for state vs. private ownership of means of production is part of that model. And, as I stated to someone else, I'd love to have a discussion about HOW to describe these issues in another thread. (I do not want to discuss the benefits/drawbacks of the various political philosophies, but just HOW to correctly describe their relationship to one another.)