TheVulture

I've been thinking a lot about this. The physics of the battles in Ukraine feel like amphibious assaults everywhere all the time. In an amphibious assault you've got an illuminated battlefield (the attacker is a finite quantity of very visible ships and the defender is tied to a linearish boundary that the attacker can observe from offshore at leisure before the assault). The attacker can mass fires from behind the line of contact, but will have difficulty advancing those fires as their beachhead is in a pocket surrounded by defender's fires.
But the precursor to a successful amphibious assault is the isolation of the beachhead from its LOC, either by naval blockade for islands or by tactical and strategic air for larger assaults. Those are both unavailable in Ukraine, so even a high-tempo high-casualty assault doesn't produce meaningful operational effects (unless you chain them together over and over in a way anathema to modern western sensibility).
It'd be interesting to look at the ratio of troop density to weapon-denial-range. I think CM does a nice job of simulating that. Playing the CMBO beta Last Defense, I learned quickly that American bazooka armed infantry projected an armor denial zone about 75 meters in all directions. So if you want an impermeable defense, you need something like a squad every 150 meters of frontage in whatever depth you think you need. The first time I played CMBS Into the Breach I thought I was totally screwed because I was used to that sort of frontage. Then I discovered Javelins and had to reconsider. I'd say a modern infantry squad can project that denial zone hundreds of meters if not a kilometer or more. So has the troop density changed relative to the size of the denial zone it can project?
edit: Also, what the heck with all the videos of IFVs and tanks engaging trenches at ranges I'd describe as "pants on head"? Why does that work? Are there lots of videos I'm not seeing of IFV's getting destroyed by infantry light AT as they approach?

Or a smart opponent who has been watching SOP of the base for long enough to work out the security flaws.
Or some one on the base passing information to the wrong people.
I would love to blame Russia for everything but this one seems a bit of a stretch.
For sure Iran, China, North Korea and Russia will be learning off one another but how quickly and what lessons are passed on is open to discussion. 
It would be a gold mine of intelligence if the west could spy on those WhatsApp discussions...

I think that may be in for a re-write.  The thought of getting into a helicopter and landing on a rooftop after what we have been seeing in this war makes me want to desert.
The new SOP will be to fly the FPVs in through the roof and kill everything inside that looks dangerous.  Then walk up and try and find intel.

heh or we could just stay focused on Ukraine and not rehash WW2. 😁

I'm gonna post it again for posterity.

 
This guy is uncredible at best but comes across as a "neutral" critic of the west/Ukraine in a poor attempt to seem unbiased. I don't know why people bother linking him.

I assure you that anyone employing the word “woke” in any serious context also has no idea.

I think most people have no idea just how bad things are.  If “woke” means “accessing as much of a nations human capital as one can” well then I guess we are all jumping on that social justice train.
As you note demographics are but one reason modern militaries in the west are straining to keep up.  Being largely orientated towards “one model recruit type” is not helping.  One driver is to look more representative of the society paying for the whole thing.  But the larger driver is looking more representative so that a broader demographic set will actually join up.  In Canada we are running out of males of European descent.  So we get with the program or continue to suffer.
To my eyes “woke” has been so over used that I am not sure people pointing at it even know what it really means anymore.

This is a common claim from the "git yer gubmint hands offa mah medicare" demographic of deep thinkers.
It is, of course, pants.
Making an activity illegal never eliminates it (see: speeding, murder). It does, nevertheless, still provide three useful outcomes. It ...
1) reduces the frequency of the prohibited thing, because most people understand that rules exist, there are reasons even if they don't like the reasons, and complying with the rules is part of the social contract
2) makes it super easy to identify illegal behaviour, and thus cue counters. In this case, *any* drone over DC is ipso facto a target for countermeasures, with no further questions needed.
3) hands the good guys a legal mallet to go after miscreants with.
All three things affect law avoiding individuals, contrary to the popular claim.

Our former POWs told today Russians really sometime used tarnsport aviation for captives moving. BUT. For group in 50 captives were 20 MP servicemen and 3 of escorting persons from Army. So, Russian claims about 3 guardmen for 63 captives is BS.
This video posted above, shows large holes in the plane remains - so this was SAM work, not MANPAD. 
Also other video shows only two corpses on the field, no any signs of ground litterd by multiple bodies 
UKR General Staff claimed this was UKR AD work
 

Short answer, no. Tom Cooper had an interesting write up on this. The F-16/AIM120 combo is out ranged by the SU35/MIG31/R37 combo.
You also have to remember the F16 Ukraine is getting are upgraded A models which while competent are not as deadly as the latest models in the U.S. inventory.
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/its-the-range-stupid-part-1?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Way too much emphasis has been placed on the F16 and aircraft in general. One important feature of this war is the way in which SAMs dominate the air battlefield and shape all air operations. Both Ukrainian and Russian air forces are very skittish about  coming into range of the other sides SAMs since that is almost guaranteed death.
More Patriot batteries would be a lot more useful to Ukraine than 40 year old F16s.

Intriguing report of the British MoD successfully testing an anti-drone laser system - called DragonFire, because the MoD is the best at chosing names for weapon systems - that is quoted at cost around £10 per shot with a 7 mile range. Although obviously there are questions about how close to reality those claims are and how well it would translate to battlefield conditions in practice. Could be battefield ready "in 5 years".
Paywalled article from the Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/laser-weapon-aerial-target-porton-down-xzzwn00ls
Free to view archived version: https://archive.is/ArNai
 

I'm not a big graphics nerd, but I'd love to see Bradley rounds hitting a T-90 looking like that in Combat Mission.  But it's the kind of thing big budget games have a team of programmers and artists working on for 6 months straight and still can't get it looking right. 

I'm pretty sure they are only counting the cost of electricity per shot. Once you factor in the cost of the system, expected lifetime, running and crewing costs etc., its going to go up considerably. It's just a good headline number at a time when the British press is talking about whether it makes sense to use a £10M missile to intercept a houthi drone in the red sea. And I strongly suspect this has been sent to the press now as a response to that scenario,  mostly for political lobbying and funding purposes.
So take it all with a hefty dose of cynicism, that this isn't an objective view of capability, but a political marketing push.
But it does show (if there's any truth to it at all) that a laser system that might be able to deal with drones cost effectively isn't completely insane,  and might be achievable.

Intriguing report of the British MoD successfully testing an anti-drone laser system - called DragonFire, because the MoD is the best at chosing names for weapon systems - that is quoted at cost around £10 per shot with a 7 mile range. Although obviously there are questions about how close to reality those claims are and how well it would translate to battlefield conditions in practice. Could be battefield ready "in 5 years".
Paywalled article from the Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/laser-weapon-aerial-target-porton-down-xzzwn00ls
Free to view archived version: https://archive.is/ArNai
 

Intriguing report of the British MoD successfully testing an anti-drone laser system - called DragonFire, because the MoD is the best at chosing names for weapon systems - that is quoted at cost around £10 per shot with a 7 mile range. Although obviously there are questions about how close to reality those claims are and how well it would translate to battlefield conditions in practice. Could be battefield ready "in 5 years".
Paywalled article from the Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/laser-weapon-aerial-target-porton-down-xzzwn00ls
Free to view archived version: https://archive.is/ArNai
 

Intriguing report of the British MoD successfully testing an anti-drone laser system - called DragonFire, because the MoD is the best at chosing names for weapon systems - that is quoted at cost around £10 per shot with a 7 mile range. Although obviously there are questions about how close to reality those claims are and how well it would translate to battlefield conditions in practice. Could be battefield ready "in 5 years".
Paywalled article from the Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/laser-weapon-aerial-target-porton-down-xzzwn00ls
Free to view archived version: https://archive.is/ArNai
 

Intriguing report of the British MoD successfully testing an anti-drone laser system - called DragonFire, because the MoD is the best at chosing names for weapon systems - that is quoted at cost around £10 per shot with a 7 mile range. Although obviously there are questions about how close to reality those claims are and how well it would translate to battlefield conditions in practice. Could be battefield ready "in 5 years".
Paywalled article from the Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/laser-weapon-aerial-target-porton-down-xzzwn00ls
Free to view archived version: https://archive.is/ArNai
 

I'm not a big graphics nerd, but I'd love to see Bradley rounds hitting a T-90 looking like that in Combat Mission.  But it's the kind of thing big budget games have a team of programmers and artists working on for 6 months straight and still can't get it looking right. 

Just saw a pic of the abandoned T-90M
In CM's language, it is:
Optics: X
CITV: X
Weapon control: X
Main Gun : X
 
 
the two bright flash in the video are the smoke grenades discharged from the launcher. So all the smoke grenades are gone too. And from the pic the smoke launchers seem to be taken a badly damages.
 

I'm not a big graphics nerd, but I'd love to see Bradley rounds hitting a T-90 looking like that in Combat Mission.  But it's the kind of thing big budget games have a team of programmers and artists working on for 6 months straight and still can't get it looking right. 

As far as I know most revolutions and uprisings have one or more underground/resistance/rebel - groups that do have a decent "organisational structure" with active planning and communication. Sometimes they're small in size (Nazi-Germany), sometimes huge (Afghanistan).  Some are only strong in a country's rebellious area's (Yemen), while others can be found almost throughout the entire country. (Vietnam, Algeria 1950's).
Those organisations usually make plans for what to do, and how to act, when the opportunity for "the revolution" arises.
They're all a bit like embers in a dying fire. Waiting.. but as soon as a new piece of wood is thrown upon those embers the flames suddenly come back to life.
The Prigozhin-revolt was not one log into the fire, but an effin busload of logs! Even in Russia most people, and certainly any "revolutionaries" must have realized that something big was going on. I think the storming of the Bastille in France may have been less huge in every aspect (except for the final result, that is).
But I haven't heard of ANY streetfighting ANYWHERE in Russia, because revolutionary groups took their chance. Nowhere, as far as i know, were huge demonstrations reported. No attacks on governemental institutions, no riots, no protests, not even minor disturbances, no cheering crowds. Not the least bit of chaos! Such a huge country, but nowhere any noticable support for, what after a few hours was stunningly obvious for even the stupidest of onlookers, an uprising on the way without any opposition!
But nothing but silence..
And that for me indicates that we will not see a people's uprising in Russia. Maybe someone close to Putin succeeds in killing him, or maybe he falls terminally ill, but I cannot see a second "storming of the winterpalace".

I'm not a fan of our UK government, but I am a fan of their support for Ukraine and I don't think there's any call in the country for that to change.  For example see PM Sunak's speech today in Parliament, and the agreement of the opposition leader Starmer.  They both mentioned a hope that renewed UK support will become a model for other countries...

Haiduk, I have so much respect for you because you are always balanced in your opinion and share even horrible videos showing your countrymen getting killed, no matter how bad it must feel. That's very unique. I hope the best for you and your country.

It's just an exercise scenario.
Bild has blown it out of proportions by misrepresenting it as some sort of battle plan or expected threat.

I am really tired of the idea that there is a mysterious cabal of crypto hawks who somehow have the power to influence defense decisions in dozens of countries around the world and are dedicated to ensuring the war in Ukraine never ends. If anything, people in democratic countries have shown time and again that they do not want war, and even when a war does spark off, they certainly don't want long ones. War is not popular with the people. No politicians are running on a platform of "let's keep everyone at war". On the contrary!
Obviously not all decisions made by the government are communicated in detail to the people, but the whole point of democracy is that there is freedom of debate and eventual transparency. There are plenty of anti-war politicians around the world who have an interest in exposing a forever war conspiracy, and yet no evidence has been exposed. So why keep suggesting it exists?
It's true that a handful of actors here and there have an interest in dragging wars out for economic reasons, or believe it might be advantageous for geopolitical reasons, but they are far from "the ones in charge", and their position is not widely popular. On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence that warfare has changed in a way that it is no longer easy to deal out crushing victories against near-peer adversaries. Perhaps it never was.