hcrof
-
Posts
1,100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by hcrof
-
-
12 hours ago, Kinophile said:
RUSI higher level overview of the UKR and RUS performances in the war so far.
Jack Watling et al.
Full Pdf here.
I knew it was high, but I thought maybe 75%. So yah, Drones functionally = munitions.
That really is a must-read, thanks. Too many interesting tidbits to pick anything specific - it needs to be read in its entirety.
-
Relevant discussion on tanks in Ukraine:
https://ukrainevolunteer297689472.wordpress.com/2022/11/25/here-russian-tanks-are-mostly-fodder/
I know the Russians are "using them wrong" but the interviewee emphasizes that they are so visible on the battlefield they are very vulnerable.
-
18 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
Well, as was said there are some pretty basic physics involved that make it impractical. At least for something that doesn't cost a ton of money. Which means that even in 10 years high winds and/or pounding rain will ground most areal drones. Ground based drones will have other problems to deal with, in particular deep snow, whiteout conditions, high winds, etc. but there's more practical options for overcoming them.
Steve
Don't most militaries use winged drones, not quadcopters? Presumably all-weather operations are a consideration with that choice.
-
I wonder if it is just easier to bring trainloads of artillery shells there so they attack because they can press the artillery advantage?
-
3 minutes ago, Artkin said:
I think APS is a game changer if Trophy is as good as they say it is.. 360 degree protection, even able to intercept top attack munitions... Pair that with an anti-drone suite and you're going to have a vehicle that you can barely look at without dying. The only way to fight these monsters will be with overwhelming numbers, artillery, or insurgency style tactics (Blending in with the population). In a near peer conflict I.E. the US, I would expect military satellites would also be targeted. So you're going to have armored forces driving across the country without having decent ISR against it.
The problem is that mines and artillery probably account for the majority of kills in this war. Also doesn't trophy use radar? So now you are just broadcasting "kill me" for any sensor in the area. And that is before we talk about swarms, hypervelocity rockets etc
-
33 minutes ago, JonS said:
Like us all, I've been pondering the 'death of tanks' idea, and I can't help thinking that the entire premise of the question is wrong.
On 20 Nov 1917 the British lost 50% of the almost 500 tanks employed
At dawn on 8 Aug 1918 the British had almost 600 tanks, but by the 12th that was down to just six (6)! 99% casualties, in 4 days.
In late 1939 the Germans lost around 10% of their tanks in a campaign lasting just over a month
In mid 1940 the Germans lost 33% of their tanks in a campaign lasting just on 6 weeks.
In 1967 the Israelis lost 50% of their tanks in just six days
In 1973 the Israelis lost 25% of their tanks in a war lasting 19 daysAnd yet, every one of those battles and campaigns were considered wildly successful.
Tanks have [i]always[/i] been vulnerable. They are [i]protected[/i]. and certainly more so than the PBI wandering around in a cotton shirt, but that isn't a free pass away from the realities of high-intensity peer-level warfare. The question is - or should be - whether they are effective, and whether they bring capabilities that can't otherwise be realised. he answer to that was, and still is, yes.
I am also moving away from a "tanks are obsolete" position, but given the high attrition rates of tanks I am not very keen on 70tonne monsters with 4 crew members which will just be knocked out by a hundred types of modern weapon (aps is a distraction imo). We need larger numbers of lighter tanks, preferably with fewer crew (or none!).
-
38 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
This may be against western targets but I am talking Ukraine itself. Why hold back against an opponent you are lobbing cruise missiles at? As I understand it deterrence in cyberspace is incredibly hard, so I am also not sure that is what is holding Russia at bay.
Just like the physical fighting, the Russians have been cyber-attacking Ukraine since 2014 (and already took down the power network before) so I assume Ukraine is pretty resilient by now.
-
36 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
First, I doubt the veracity of the styrofoam claim very much. Why? Because it would take more time and resources to make a fake dragons tooth than to simply pour some concrete over steel bars. I have heard nothing about Russia suffering a concrete shortage and this whole styrofoam theory sound like complete BS.
The styrofoam is almost certainly being used as formwork to shape the dragons teeth and a bit just stuck to the concrete as they pulled it out.
Thanks for the explanation btw, that was well put
-
4 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:
It's quite possible, but it means destructions of the city and wave of Ukrianian casualties, both military and civilians. Author of the thread admits that Russian plan has many drawbacks as it has advantages. Russian forces will be much more cramped and easier targets for artillery. If they abandon too much terrain, UA barrel artillery will also start oblitorating the supply lines throught the river that are still in use. However, note that despite our predictions here, Russians did manage to secure enough supplies to hold most of their bridgehead till now. And Kremlin seems to be very determined to do something with its dirty bomb narrative.
I wonder how easy it would be to hold a city with a population that is so eager to be liberated and has plenty of opportunities to communicate with the outside world? I know the Russians cut the internet lines but I imagine the Ukrainians might already be smuggling in weapons and Comms equipment while the front lines are relatively long and porus - there have been rumours of occasional firefights in the city over the last few weeks...
-
2 minutes ago, keas66 said:
I am curious though - I would have expected a modern armored force with appropriate engineering assets attached would treat such defensive works as a minor blockage only . It seems like a utter waste of time - or maybe not ?
I think the point is that you need engineering equipment to breach these defenses, so they would be effective against the "dagger" style raids the UA is using. A prepared attack with engineering assets is easier to spot and disrupt with artillery so in principle I think these defenses can be effective.
-
17 minutes ago, Ts4EVER said:
Have they heard of zig-zagging trenches?
I believe that is an anti tank ditch, not a trench
-
On 8/25/2022 at 1:09 AM, hcrof said:
Ok, here is a more developed concept for a tank-like system for the modern battlefield. The observer/hunter/killer team. The purpose of the system is to punch through enemy defenses and exploit the rear, or it can be used defensively.
Killer: as per the concept above. It remains behind cover at all times and destroys enemy vehicles and strongpoints with its gun-mortar and atgm at ranges 5-10km.
Hunter: a light tank with IR and visual sensors, as well as the ability to deploy a small drone for scouting. It is small and light, with a 3 man crew and front armour that can withstand 30mm fire. Its main armament is a quick firing 15-20mm cannon (think ciws), with a few starstreak missiles. Using its sensors it can detect enemy drones and shoot them down. It can suppress and destroy infantry and if it encounters a heavy vehicle it calls the killer vehicle which destroys it. If the enemy launches an atgm, the IR sensor will automatically detect the launch and the cannon will shoot the missile down. APS is the final line of defence.
Observer: travels just behind the hunter. Another small vehicle which is basically just a drone carrier. Its job is to search every potential enemy position in advance so it can be destroyed by the killer vehicle or artillery.
Combine that team with mechanised infantry to secure the terrain and clear out urban areas.
In this way the team can push forward a dense ISR bubble while degrading that of the enemy. The gun-mortar provides prompt integrated fires that will destroy enemy vehicles while the hunters deal with infantry and atgm teams. The lightweight vehicles are fast and mobile with reduced logistical requirements.
Seems like the US army is looking at my hunter concept already!!
-
2 minutes ago, Letter from Prague said:
I'm happy to see fresh batch of "how dare the Ukranians be racist against Russians by calling them barbaric" from people living far away from Russia is well timed with fresh batch of Russian atrocities: Ukraine Army Discovers Mutilated Bodies With 'Genitals Cut Off' During Mop-Up Operations https://www.ibtimes.com/ukraine-army-discovers-mutilated-bodies-genitals-cut-off-during-mop-operations-3614606
But sure, keep talking about being angry at Russians is the true evil here.
Did you read what Butschi said? It is possible to condemn russian atrocities while warning against going too far and becoming just as bad as the Kremlin propagandists.
What about the Russians who are horrified by the war and are organising against it? What about the Russians fighting for Ukraine right now?
We must not become the monster we condemn.
-
Can anyone comment on this Twitter thread? Seems to imply the Kherson front is reaching a breaking point, but the maps are not nearly as good as Grigb's:
https://mobile.twitter.com/NLwartracker/status/1570740207892434946
-
14 minutes ago, RandomCommenter said:
Hi guys,
Long time lurker, first time poster here. I have been reading these boards since early March and I have to say that this is the single best source on the internet I have found to find out what is actually going on on the ground in Ukraine. I also really respect the way you guys generally keep it civil and the community you have built with things like the laptop for Haiduk. So massive respect to you all from me.
One question I have, if I may. Something I have not seen a lot of discussion of recently is that early in the war the Ukrainians were terrified of the Russian Air Force. There was a lot of pressure to "close the skies" and a lot of debate about how NATO trying to run a no-fly zone / SEAD mission could easily escalate into war. But we have not heard much recently on this front. The Russian Air Force are absent. My question is, why? What turned the tide?
I know the Ukrainians managed to disperse their fighter jets and miraculously are still flying six months later using highways to take off. So that is one threat. And there is the MANPAD threat and those MANPADs are all over Ukraine now. We have the British Starstreak system went in. And we saw in July that the US announced some NASAMS systems (National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System) that went in.
But is that it? If you guys have time I would be interested in your take on what exactly turned the tide in the air war here. Apologies if this topic was previously addressed in some of the posts on here (it is a challenge to read it all).
Anyway thanks again for all the hours you put in making sense of this conflict to the extent that you can in the midst of the fog of war.
Slava Ukraini!
I think this article, while written very early on in the war, is still relevant.
-
3 minutes ago, pavel.k said:
How large is Wagner Group? Should Putin recall them to Moscow for protection?
That would be a dangerous move - Putin does not control Wagner directly and they are as likely to turn on him than any other actor (if not more so)
-
7 minutes ago, Haiduk said:8 minutes ago, Haiduk said:
I've written about two days ago about Russian forces in Balakliya area, where initial strike took place - 79th MRR of 18th MRD, 126th Rosgvardiya regiment, two detachments of SOBR, OMON, battalions of LPR mobiks and 60th BARS battalion
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but it sounds like we agree? I thought that the 79th MRR pulled back out of the line and the rest of that list were not capable of stopping the UA advance because they had few heavy weapons and could not coordinate with artillery? At that point the UA broke through and a few days later the regular troops around izium largely pulled out, leaving a lot of equipment behind them.
-
7 minutes ago, Haiduk said:
This is not exactly true. UKR spear jsut penetrated positions of weak mobik troops and further combining mech fist and SOF terror on communications caused chaos in enemy C&C and logistic. Russians had there units of 18th MRD, 144 MRD, 4th TD, 2nd MRD, 126th operative regiment (light armored infantry), 3rd Corps units, different BARS reservist battalions. But their resistsnce was broken, reserves, as says Konstantin Mashovets were throwing into the battle one by one without any plan - only to close a next hole. You can see how much losses was fixed by Orix for 9th Sep. And this is about half if not less.
Thanks for the clarification, but I thought the regular units were in the south around izium and they mostly pulled out once the breakthrough happened north of them?
Edit: so the actual fighting was mobiks, left behind Rosgvardiya and rear echelon troops?
-
2 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
It is really interesting from an operational surprise point of view. How the UA managed to do operational surprise in this day and age - even given the poorer RA systems - is beyond me. I am wondering if they went lighter for reasons of lower profile and logistics load?
Well I guess things will become clearer in time. Let's face it, we are going to spend years unpacking what actually happened in this war.
If so, that is very bold - but the UA general staff have been very impressive so far.
-
On the whole tank thing, I also refer back to my earlier point that the UA are currently fighting mobiks and policemen more than modern troops. It's all very Afghanistan 2001 rather than a heavy metal war in that area.
-
Just now, The_Capt said:
So I am not going to reopen the "tanks are dead...no they are not" debate...please gawd no.
However, is it just me or do light forces seem to be leading on this whole thing again? I am sure there has been some heavy action but we still are not seeing big armor from the UA - unless I am missing something?
Agreed, they may have been used in the initial punch but the exploitation forces look very light.
-
24 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
The big payoff, the biggest, is that the UA appears to have solved for offence on what is looking like an operational scale. This is significant as only the RA has been able to sustain anything that looks like offensive operations and this was done through WW1 levels of massed artillery, which the UA does not (and likely will not) have. So what? Well if the UA can make large scale offensives work - and this is all the shaping and setting of pre-conditions beforehand - and can do it with what they have then this is potentially an entirely new war.
I am delighted that the Russians are folding like a wet paper bag, but it seems that sector was thinly defended by policemen and 60yo mobiks with no heavy weapons or mobile reserve. I would not say the Ukrainians have proved much yet beyond basic competence at this stage (which might be enough if the Russians are truly spent).
Edit: what I am trying to say is that what works in izium might not work against anything more than a token defense - that is yet to be proven at this Stage. All the more reason to provide more support to the UA.
-
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1565021606316949504?s=20&t=f3tw1iEZOgiSuJwmkUbObA
QuoteUkraine's forces established fire control over Kakhovskyi and Antonivskyi bridges, Operational Command "South" informs
In the south, UA forces continue to destroy RU logistics routes, command points, places of concentration of Russian forces and assets
-
51 minutes ago, Haiduk said:
Ukrainian M113s
What vehicle appeared on 0:06?
Have we seen any m113s in combat? Or are they equipping a fresh unit that hasn't been committed yet?
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
As per the RUSI report the Ukrainians prefer extreme long range engagement with tanks using artillery fire control so seems plausible.