OBJ

Sea drones, learning from the Ukrainians to be ready to beat the Chinese. "The program was inspired in part by the low-cost lethal surface drones developed by Ukraine and built with off-the-shelf components, USNI News understands." See US 'Replicator' initiative.
https://news.usni.org/2024/01/30/pentagon-puts-out-call-for-swarming-attack-drones-that-could-blunt-a-taiwan-invasion
Russian convicts military contracts, longer, less lenient, automatically 'renew' when they conclude, result of unhappy RA non-convicts and relatives. Apparently in the convict 'Storm V' units attrition is high and morale is low. Russian tradition of  frontline penal units continues.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68140873

the problem with artillery ammunition, and barrels, is that they have to withstand absurdly high stress. 
 
Above is a very technical article from decades ago proving that a slightly cheaper grade of steel was not going to work. Virtually nothing in the civilian economy operates at the same kind of stress levels. So there is exactly as much capacity out there as the government has been willing to pay for. The single biggest lesson of this war is that we weren't paying for even a fraction of enough. What makes this much worse is that production machinery, and the machines to make the production machinery are just as specialized, and the capacity for all of it has withered with three plus decades of very low demand. Resurrecting all of that is requires serious engineering AFTER we get of our rear ends in gear and write the checks, and contracts to pay for it. We have done an absolutely crap job of doing that in a coherent way, that admits this problem isn't going away next week. Rheinmetal and the various U.S. defense contractors need SIGNED CONTRACTS to even get started. Two years in many of those contracts STILL aren't signed. It is a an epic case study in refusing to admit there is a war on.
There is real engineering being done on dragging whole process from 1950s tech up to something modern, but please note the 2025 delivery date for the first new model shells.   Drones are pretty much the polar opposite in terms of the difficulty of manufacturing. Every single piece that goes into them is common civilian tech. The actual warheads are usually RPG rounds simply because there are warehouses full of them around. There is nothing particularly complicated about designing warhead for drone use that would be lighter, cheaper and more effective. Because drones do not undergo the enormous stresses that being fired even from a RPG, much less a 155mm artillery barrel impose. Any thin wall tubing would work just fine. Soda cans would probably work just fine. Someone just has to decide to order five million of the bleeping things and it ought to be possible to put together a factory in six months that can make a thousand of them an hour with out ever being touched by a human hand. Somebody just has to make a decision and write a contract. The Ukrainians seem to have been trying to get this underway, but nobody else is trying nearly hard enough. 
 
 
  In regard to the Ukrainian strikes against Russian oil infrastructure, it is has been known since 1945 that attacking oil infrastructure is most effective method of conducting a strategic bombing campaign. Refineries, and chemical factories, are the linchpin of the modern world. They are big, flammable, impossible to hide, and there are not that many of them. Ukraine should focus on them almost exclusively. The strike someone mentioned on a critical factory for Lancet production is the exception that proves the rule.  

Cold Warriors.
  Well it looks like Steve has already dropped the mic over on the annual update thread, so let myself, Bil H and Cpt Miller (along with a small team of unwashed heathens - two of whom are actually from the UK), be the second to announce the first CMCW Module - CMCW - British Army On the Rhine (BAOR).

We are still in development so I will only outline the broad strokes of what we are working on, and insert the caveat that we reserve the right to add/subtract - 
 - Time frame of the game is going deeper backwards into the Cold War.  We are setting the clock back to 1976, so CMCW will now encompass 1976-1982 (including some minor tweaks to the existing US orbats).  As has been noted we are less interested in the later Cold War years largely because they really do start to resemble the later CM titles and we are shooting to keep CMCW distinct in its own right.
- UK BOAR - right now we have a pretty comprehensive build planned for the UK units as they transitioned from their 1974 structures - to where they landed in 1980.  As per the picture above players should be able to become deeply engaged within the historical BAOR sector of the ETO.
- And because I just have to represent the home team, we are also doing the Canadians.  That little black box is the planned 4 CMBG AO - you will note this was right at the tail end when the brigade was still part of the BAOR, although for those that really want to play First Clash and park them down in Lahr you are fee to do so because the basic unit structures remained the same.
- We do have plans for the Soviet side, but are going to hold off on details until we zero them fully in...more to follow. 
- I will let you all speculate and discuss what new vehicles and weapon systems we are talking about but there is a not insignificant list of new ones we are planning - more as we start to get some cool screen shots.  
As noted by Steve, we are well on our way and are planning for a release this year - content and full scope remains TBA.
Thank you all very much for your support, the response to CMCW has been well beyond what we were expecting and that is entirely thanks to you guys.

Oil refinery a day leads the russian economy astray.
(stolen from reddit)

Thanks for this Hapless.
https://community.battlefront.com/topic/140931-how-hot-is-ukraine-gonna-get/?do=findComment&comment=2025149
It took me a while but I got it all in and enjoyed it. Silly me, I hadn't run across Antal before.
If I had a criticism, and I always do, just part of who I am, at command level he offers a lot of what to do without much how to do. For instance, his thoughts on CP survivability in major power war all seem spot on, but it's all focused on survivability and there's little detail on how to maintain and sustain same level of unit C4ISR as in the old way while being more survivable in the new way.

Don't know if either below will be of interest to you or not, both are higher than tactical discussions. The second one may already have been referenced by the CMCW designers.
Into the 80s in Mech Bns Pre-Bradley/still 113 based, the MECH Bn/TF TOW company was a support and admin HQ. TOW Platoons were attached to Mech Companies to give the Mech Cos. long range AT fires, just as you posit.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA384122.pdf
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://history.army.mil/html/books/069/69-4-1/cmhPub_69-4-1.pdf

I am content to wait and see.

https://mastodon.social/@Tendar@newsie.social/111866702912127288
Another successful drone interception by a refinery 

Yes, and even over a decade ago things like this happened...
Nobody watns to be the goat in a military version of that disaster. The problem at the moment is figuring out whether your force is more at risk due to moving to slowly to hand stuff over to AI, or to quickly. The seems to be ever more from being wrong in either direction.

I think you have me Anthony. When it first came out I tried placing the end waypoint on the spot I wanted my vehicles to be hull down to, and my tanks just kept moving, with very unpleasant results, so I stopped using it.
Thanks to you and others I can clearly see I need to go back to it and use it in conjunction with an area/enemy unit target command.

If you're referring to Yuval Noah Harari, I've read three of his works and thoroughly enjoyed all three, definitely a world class thinker and prognosticator. Highly recommended for those with an interest in such things, has the genius of presenting complex ideas in understandable ways.
https://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-Humankind-Yuval-Noah-Harari/dp/0062316095
https://www.amazon.com/Homo-Deus-Brief-History-Tomorrow/dp/0062464310
https://www.amazon.com/Lessons-21st-Century-Yuval-Harari/dp/0525512179
"In the book Sapiens, Yuval Noah Harari talks about two types of chaotic systems: Level 1 = does not react to predictions about it, e.g. the weather. Level 2 = reacts to predictions about it, e.g. markets, politics."
As I recall his two big worries were/are biotech and AI.

Well...he was Scotch..tish  

Just for the uninitiated, had to look this up:
Chaotic systems come in two shapes. Level one chaos is chaos that does not react to predictions about it. The weather, for example, is a level one chaotic system... Level two chaos is chaos that reacts to predictions about it, and therefore can never be predicted. Markets, for example, are a level two chaotic system.

I agree.
Below repetitive I know, still...relevant to offensive autonomous AI in the military 
In the West we'll have to get through the politicians, you know we will. They:
1. Heard Chat GPT lies
2. Heard Chat GPT makes s**t up
3. Heard Geoffrey Hinton and other AI scientific heads say AI could end humanity 
3. Went to see Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part 1

and, at least in the US congress, only 1 in 6 has any military experience let lone the kind of military experience that would be useful in understanding the technology's military applications
Particularly difficult as Dan says if the technology creators can't explain/prove cause and effect.

If you're referring to Yuval Noah Harari, I've read three of his works and thoroughly enjoyed all three, definitely a world class thinker and prognosticator. Highly recommended for those with an interest in such things, has the genius of presenting complex ideas in understandable ways.
https://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-Humankind-Yuval-Noah-Harari/dp/0062316095
https://www.amazon.com/Homo-Deus-Brief-History-Tomorrow/dp/0062464310
https://www.amazon.com/Lessons-21st-Century-Yuval-Harari/dp/0525512179
"In the book Sapiens, Yuval Noah Harari talks about two types of chaotic systems: Level 1 = does not react to predictions about it, e.g. the weather. Level 2 = reacts to predictions about it, e.g. markets, politics."
As I recall his two big worries were/are biotech and AI.

It is from Harari (I think).  I argue that warfare (and economies) might be a 3rd level chaotic system - a system that reacts to imagined predictions about it.  This in essence is the human ability to remember the future in a meta-awareness way.  Another spin is the human ability to hold two diametrically opposed concepts in tension as "true." - e.g. God loves us, but made hell etc.

Most things people consider AI right now, from self driving cars to chatGPT is almost as hard to understand as giving someone a brain scan to ask why they like the colour pink. The code is simpler than you would think, but the "thought process" is almost totally opaque. A major area of AI research right now is trying to get it to explain why it did stuff in a way we understand 

You would be amazed at how difficult it is to do this.

Get the whole FI package when you do. There's a LOT of variety in forces and equipment in, especially in the DLCs, and some great scenarios all around. It's a very different experience from the hedgerows and the steppes!
Dave

It's because russia is losing and the war may not be over before the end of 2024. It won't look good to release a game about the war in Ukraine as the war will still be going on.... 
I  am pro-Ukrainian just calling it like I see it.
 
I hope I am wrong and this is all over soon and in a positive way for the Ukrainian people

Jeesh, I really need to work on my communication skills.
Tux you have given us a very thoughtful post, and for the small part of it I played a role in... 
My thoughts were:
1. It's unlikely humans will ever cede all of warfighting to AI
2. If they do, it will be humans intentionally ceding warfighting to AI
I think we have consensus, majority agreement, humans have already ceded parts of warfighting to AI, i.e. autonomous AD. My comment was based on my view the trend of handing off decision making and execution to AI will continue in ever more warfighting functions, as in the fields you list of natural sciences, healthcare and economics. That's not to say the entire field will be ceded to AI.

Agree, and the only serious reading I did on it was:
https://www.amazon.com/Spanish-Civil-War-Hugh-Thomas/dp/B002ADRJB8
It is a heavy read.
The one thing that stuck with me was the Luftwaffe's affirmation/refinement of their fighter tactics, finger four flight, two plane elements, lead and wingman, loose formation, shooter and defender, which hurt the Allies when they were still flying in close formation three plane 'Vics' with the wingmen out of necessity focused on not running into the lead.
Of course I also read 'For whom the Bell Tolls' but did not take away a lot of tactical insights from that one

Phillips O'Brian  checks in on the subject of the day.

In terms of AI, I think we'd be better off thinking of autonomous systems less in terms of tactical target selection (i.e. "kill/no kill <> hands up/hands down") and more in the Arms of the Future sense. One good example would would be a fast AI drone with powerful auditory sensors attuned to the particular magnetostrictive hum of Russian power transformers. Or pipeline compression facilities. Or high tension power lines. Or the engine of a tank/self propelled artillery/etc.