hcrof

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.

What about a 2S9 Nona with a sensor mast, Spike NLOS missiles and a fleet of drones? It would be cheap, mobile, always in defilade and could rain hell down on any enemy up to 10km away.

If you have enough intelligence superiority to destroy the enemy reserve armour (or those cool buggies with atgms that would be faster and just as lethal) then why do you even need tanks? Just blast the enemy with artillery or air power. On the other hand, that artillery or some truck mounted brimstones will mess up your armour push quite nicely as you have kind of flushed yourself out. That's assuming you managed to catch every infantry squad before you get attritted by their AT weapons. A well equipped Ukrainian (or NATO) squad is carrying multiple javelins/NLAWs each which is more AT firepower than a full cold war company.

I look at that new Australian (?) Drone that can be launched out of a 40mm grenade launcher and I am starting to think that 40mm kamikaze drones with some form of image recognition would be a game changer. They could be launched en mass at an enemy position and they independently seek and kill anyone nearby. They could be fired by infantry small arms or dropped as a cluster munition. Yes they are an expensive way to kill someone, but probably still cheaper than a barrage of 155mm or even thousands of rounds of 5.56. And scarily easy to use...

That might have worked 80 years ago, but infantry advancing on foot in Ukraine get cut to pieces by drone directed mortar fire. Armour without infantry gets destroyed by dug in infantry if they are aggressive and by artillery if they are cautious. So for all this talk of combined arms this is why I can't see how more/better infantry solves the problem of the fact that entrenched infantry + drones + artillery seems to be able to repel any attack at the moment and the war devolves into an attritional stalemate. Honestly I think a non-US NATO force would do better than Russia in the same situation: they would advance through the first defensive belts but they would still take heavy casualties, run out of momentum due to The_Capt friction then end up playing Grigb artillery ping pong. Edit: the US would do better of course, but that is only because of the enormous resources they can throw at the problem.

Don't disagree with any of that - Russia sure has an infantry problem. The question I have is how more/better infantry would help Russia during its attempts to mass armour for the breakthrough.

Can someone from the "but if only they had good infantry camp" explain how infantry solves this problem? Honestly I can't understand how it is supposed to work. In CM sure, good infantry will let you crack an enemies defense, with tanks cleverly keyholed and positioned carefully by an all-knowing commander for best effect. But in the real world, that means the momentum of the attack is fading by the minute and the defending division commander is presumably calling in more precision artillery, and the operational reserves to stop you? My impression of a breakthrough attack (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that it is not that sophisticated once it gets going. Pre registered targets are flattened, the tanks move forward at speed and they hose everything down with mg fire until they are through, with infantry following to secure the (hopefully empty) objectives. Sooner or later a tank blows up and at that point 120mm fire destroys what did it pretty promptly. I'm not saying it's easy, just that it's not a delicate process that more infantry can solve? If the infantry have to dismount the attack is increasingly at risk of failure until everything speeds up again?

I think we should write off the first few weeks of the war as an aberration - we can't learn very much from that other than don't get cocky. The question is how a modern army would handle the donbass. I'm sure the US could with enough air power, but if the Ukrainians had a NATO quality army I'm not sure they would do much better. If nothing else the attacker would suffer heavy casualties and potentially get bogged down (and the donbass is only held by a few brigades, not divisions). Edit: and just imagine a non-US force try to take the donbass. Our UK/CAN/GER/NED force would be cut to pieces.

I get the impression that the battles in CM are very unusual compared with mobile warfare doctrine. Both NATO and warpac were not planning on fighting carefully balanced scenarios and take heavy casualties despite tactical genius by the commander. It was more like bomb the hell out of an area and then drive a tank battalion through it at speed for the breakthrough. Careful dancing around with keyholed tanks on the offense may happen in reality but I don't think it is doctrine.

Do we know the intent behind these attacks? They don't seem to be doing much damage so I guess it is just to cause confusion/discontent?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62602367 According to the article, damage to the transmission lines are the biggest risk that may cause overheating because that energy has to go somewhere. But the reactor has been set up to hopefully safely shut down in that event, using the existing diesel generators for power during this time.

The world is not black and white. India is a historic ally of Russia that is moving away from that partnership, albeit slowly. China is a nominal russian partner but there are serious trust issues between them and they only despise each other marginally less than the USA. Neutrality is a spectrum, not an absolute.

My guess is a RPG shot at the BMP but it was rushed because he wanted to fire before the mine blew up (which would kind of throw your aim off). Most definitely an ambush though.

If I wanted to block a runway, parking a 45tonne tank on it and blowing it up would be at least as effective as cratering it - maybe sabotage?

No it's an expensive way to do a dirty bomb. I think even Russia would not do that - they can guess the consequences...

If the Ukrainians are saying they used a Ukrainian missile to hit the airbase, could it be tochka-u? Edit: if so it would be a great warmup for the atacms act

Am I missing something here? The song is about how the British would not be hardcore enough for a fight in dpr but all the footage is a royal marines recruitment video (so super pro UK)? It just doesn't seem to make any sense?

Rotor wing though - fixed wing is further. I assumed a heli would be fairly stationary while firing.

Wiki says brimstone II has a range of 40+ km?

I kind of like the idea of sneaking in an easily concealed brimstone platform close to the front line - it would be cheap, mobile and very fast to respond due to the reduced range compared with a SPG like Caesar playing "ping pong".

Brimstone missiles sound like exactly what you are looking for - Ukraine even got them mounted on a pickup! What happened to that experiment btw?

I have not seen anyone suggest that the whole of Siberia will form a unified political bloc that is capable of leaving the Russian federation. It's a very big place and those resources are scattered over very large areas: getting bits of Siberia is not very valuable - you need the whole lot.

Thanks, I am not old enough to remember 1994 well, but looking at a map at both those locations suggests to me why they never left in the first place. Buryatia is a forest with less than 0.5m people in it and 1 major road, next to Irkutsk which is larger and has the infrastructure to be a military staging ground. Tartarstan is right in the middle of the Russian heartland and is not going anywhere in any scenario short of the apocalypse!

Doesn't that very long list suggest that any ethnic group that wants to break away would have done so already? Other than some statelets in the Caucasus I really don't see how any new nations are likely without external backing (meaning China) but the gain of some sparsely populated forest doesn't really offset the bad example of ethnic breakaway states for them imo.

What you show will work but is a bit conservative - the Overbridge does not need to sit on the supports directly, but about a quarter of the way in so a 30m Overbridge would work for a 50m span. Of course if the damage is done to about a quarter of the way from the support that is not possible. It is an interesting problem of where to hit the bridge for the best mix of immediate damage (centre span) Vs preventing Overbridging (quarter span) Vs maximum destruction (support).