hcrof
-
Posts
1,100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by hcrof
-
-
39 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Mr S continues to drop the good questions. The old DS answer was a big gun dressed up with mobility and survivability. Now I am not so sure.
Direct fires - we need this but do we need 120-125 mm of it? Most of a tanks direct fire is to kill other tanks. If other systems are doing this better, further etc, then do we need a big AT gun? Ok, let’s say no for arguments sake. The we still need direct fires for anti-vehicle, anti-material and suppression. Does a big gun do this better than cannons, GLs, now drones with all sorts of hell attached, and/or missiles? How about a direct fire system made up of all of those, along with indirect fires? Are indirect fires becoming so precise that they can step in for direct fires?
Mobility. Well all the candidates to replace that big gun are actually more mobile because they are all lighter. Which also means they will use less energy and lighter logistics loads, not too mention infrastructure loads (bridges etc). Gotta give this to anything but a tank really.
Survivability. The church the old tank built. Nothing beat big bad armour…but didn’t we just point out a bunch of flaws in this one? Visibility is a big negative. Protection is unbeatable, except for everything that wants to kill the thing. But you cannot deny the thing can take a punch.
So what is the new tank concept? Is it even a single vehicle anymore? If you pull the tank apart and disaggregate it across multiple cheap capabilities, would that work?
My personal assessment is that I am not convinced the tank as a concept is in fact dead. I think the old concept of what a tank means may be. I suspect a heavy unmanned system will replace it, along with other systems shouldering the capability offloads. I also suspect it’s employment range will also be narrower, however not necessarily less critical.
None of this solves the much bigger issues we tackled today though, the whole conventional mass problem on a fully illuminated battlefield is going to take some time to crack.
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.
-
5 minutes ago, Twisk said:
Regardless of the type of tank that exists in the future armies will want something that can move under fire, survive close hits, and travel far with lethality. Light infantry is not this. A tank can be spotted more easily but requires more explosives and more accuracy to result in a kill. What is especially important is if tanks are able to break into rear then it must be met by either defense in depth (already positioned) or armor of the enemy. The alternative is to wait till armor reaches point of supply or geographic exhaustion. So maybe future armor breakthrough is not one of many hundreds of km but 20-30 km and then reset but even in this war 30km breakthrough would be big distance.
I say already positioned because while small teams are able to destroy a tank if those small teams must reposition even 15km quickly then having intelligence superiority in area of attack will allow precision munitions to destroy this reactionary force. So tank arm is not so much itself destroying enemy but creates disruption that forces enemy into open and allow shooters (intel + smart munition) to get kill. The tank is more bird dog to flush enemy than it is hunter.
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...
-
26 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:
For one thing, one of the main purposes of Infantry in a Combined Arms Attack is to clear and protect the flanks of the armor advance. These are not the days of the WWII Blitzkrieg armored spearpoint when the only infantry AT weapon was the anti-tank rifle. One opponent of mine in the CMx1 scenario “The Library” was stunned when I sent my Axis Infantry through the buildings on either side of the route of my Armor advance. Of course, that was where he had sited his AT Teams and my infantry wiped them out. Combined Arms Operation means everyone supporting each other.
When it comes right down to it, Armor, Artillery, and Air exist for one and only one purpose, to support the mission of the Infantry!
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.
-
16 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
Armor has never been able to hold ground on its own. A swarm of infantry can easily dislodge and destroy unsupported armor. That's been the case since armored vehicles were invented. It's why historians still snicker that the Germans didn't think they needed MGs on the Ferdinand TD
Think about a CM scenario where you drive a bunch of unsupported tanks into enemy territory. How sure are you that your armor has detected all the enemy's infantry? If you say "very sure" I say "so, this tells me you don't win many games"
AFVs, especially more primitive ones suck and finding infantry.
What this matters is that AFVs, especially tanks, have a very difficult time covering each other while on defensive. There simply aren't enough of them in a given area to be assured that some grunts with grenades are sneaking up on them. This is why you need infantry.
The other reason is that when you take ground with armor your enemy likely knows what you have and where. This gives them an opportunity to hit it either while it's on defensive or as soon as it moves out for another attack. Armor, therefore, should not hang around once it's accomplished its mission. If there's no infantry to hold those positions, then withdrawing the armor means there's no effective control of that patch of ground.
Infantry also has the advantage of being harder to find and kill. They can hide in parking garages! So again, if you are trying to take a place that is swarming with enemy infantry armed with all kinds of mean and nasty weapons, you want to be surrounded by your own infantry to deal with them.
Then there's the whole problem of Ukrainian infantry running around in the rear where Russia's softer stuff is. The lack of Russian infantry to protect supply columns, HQs, artillery systems, etc. led to massive losses.
To sum up, in this war Russia's shortage of infantry has produced major problems for both offensive and defensive operations. It struggles to take things then it struggles to hold them after they are taken.
Steve
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?
-
18 minutes ago, Kinophile said:
To clarify, not so much numbers, as quality of infantry.
Highly accurate ATGMs and UAVs are dangerous to a weakly motivated and equipped infantry-armor force. But if that force has equivalent quality & equipped infantry then would they not start to cancel/match each other, allowing armor to maneuver.
The classic example from this war is how to road-bound and flank vulnerable the RUS invasion columns were. Run the attack on Kyiv as a NATO force, even assuming contested air space, and let's see how NATO infantry deals with the flank and GLOCs vulnerabilities. Pretty sure you don't lose as many tanks and get way further way faster.
RUS infantry is sh*t explains a lot of RUS problems.
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.
-
12 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:
Hang on, is is not how we are supposed to use tanks in Combat Mission anyway?
Infantry in the front to spot&make the enemy fire positions reveal themselves, tanks at the back, as far as the LOS/effective range of weapons allows, preferrably keyholed, APCs/IFVs as battle taxis, out of LOS most of the time. This is what I have read in the many tactics threads on this very forum.
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
QuoteWhat, then, is the risk to this nuclear plant which houses six reactors and is Europe facing a Fukushima-type meltdown?
"I wouldn't be too worried," says Mark Wenman, head of the Centre for Doctoral Training in Nuclear Energy Futures. "Zaporizhzhia was built in the 1980s, which is relatively modern. It has a solid containment building. It's 1.75m (5.75ft) thick, of heavily reinforced concrete on a seismic bed, and it takes a hell of a lot to breach that."
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.
-
8 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:
True enough. But it would be 'a cunning plan' to export arms and ammo to Putin, without large transportation over sea or land. But you're right of course. Anyone who still believes in China's neutrality (or India's neutrality) is very naive, to put it mildly. Apart from that it's a very strange signal to continue joint exercises with Putin in a time like this.
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.
-
29 minutes ago, Bil Hardenberger said:
That looks like an anti-armor ambush to me... first round missed the BMP, second, from a different launcher, takes out the tank.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Haiduk said:
Ziabrovka airfield in Belarus after probable UKR strike.
T-72 is seen on runway, being destroyed because of ammo detonation. Burned grass aside runway. No other signs of destroyed vehicles. Though is a question - what the tank did on runway? Maybe it try to get out something burning from runway?
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?
-
4 minutes ago, danfrodo said:
I wonder how, or if, western countries will comment/act on this. Purposely targeting a nuke plant is basically cheap way for RU to do tactical nuke. International community needs to take strong stance against RU doing this.
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
-
46 minutes ago, Grigb said:
To calm everybody down here is new RU anti-british song which is good in a way RU did not expect:
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?
-
2 minutes ago, Grigb said:
It is from aircraft.
Rotor wing though - fixed wing is further. I assumed a heli would be fairly stationary while firing.
-
1 minute ago, dan/california said:
If I am remembering several things correctly they would need about twice the range to be really effective in a counter battery role.
Wiki says brimstone II has a range of 40+ km?
-
3 minutes ago, Huba said:
It is used successfully AFAIK, there was also a video of one launcher being hit by RU. I'd say that GPS-guided, tube launched munitions like Excalibur are the holy grail here, against towed guns at least. Against enemy SPGs, various BONUS/ SMart types would be the best tool.
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".
-
13 minutes ago, Grigb said:
It puts special emphasis on CB, yes. I believe in smaller GMLRS on smaller wheeled chassis (pickup) linked to mobile CB radar. During Arty ping pong guns usually stay at longest range (to increase chances to survive CB) so, it takes time to walk arty to target (well, I am talking about RU arty).
So, as soon as enemy arty starts ping pong it gets mini-GMLS in da face. The only thing it might require some active head to precisely lock on gun.
Brimstone missiles sound like exactly what you are looking for - Ukraine even got them mounted on a pickup!
What happened to that experiment btw?
-
5 minutes ago, FancyCat said:
Siberia, holding most of existing and future Russian oil and gas production and massive reserves of other economically important minerals is "sparsely populated forest"?
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.
-
5 minutes ago, Zeleban said:
Well, yes, there are still Tatars, Bashkirs, Buryats, Udmurts, Tuvans. It must be understood that the supremacy of Moscow over these peoples is ensured by strong power. All the collapses of Russia, such as 1917 or 1991, occurred with the weakening of the organs of repression. As for the further collapse of Russia, one can recall 1994, when, following the example of Chechnya, there were active discussions about secession in Tatarstan, and separatist sentiments were always strong in Siberia and Buryatia. But after the war in Chechnya, where Russia demonstrated its readiness to shed the blood of the rebellious peoples, these discussions quickly subsided. But it is safe to say that they will undoubtedly arise again as soon as Russian power weakens.
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!
-
3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Is this still about your doubts about how important ethnic/regional problems are for Russia and how likely it is there will be areas of the current Russian Federation that breakaway along those lines? I really don't know why you're stuck with that, especially when the evidence is pretty clear that you're thinking is historically off the mark.
To prove my point... which of these traditional Tzarist Russian regions, which were part of the Soviet Union, refused to be a part of the Russian Federation?
Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Georgia
Armenia
Chechnya
Dagestan
Latvia
Lithuania
EstoniaYes, all of them. Now, what is the common theme for all of these 10s of millions of people opting to abandon hundreds of years of shared history with Russia when it was too weak to stop them from leaving? Let me give you a small hint... it begins with "E" and ends with "thnicity"
I'm curious what your theory is that precludes this from happening again when Russia is, once again, too weak to do anything about it. Because so far you haven't put forth anything tangible.
Steve
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.
-
38 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:
Even though beam bridges (that Antonovsky Bridge is) are not as obvious as other types like cantilever Bridges there are very certain ways the forces applied to the bridge are meant to be directed. This means slapping a engineering bridge on top of the hole doesn't solve much.
relevant vid: https://youtu.be/l-_TKh-qZmQ
If you cut this bride in two from the middle you are going to have to replace the entire span. (that is 50m in this case) But you have to damage the supporting structures or "beams" (already seen in some photos). Hitting the supports would be the most effective, not sure if that is possible with HIMARS. (small and under the bridge)
Engineering bridge would have to be put over like in the photo under. Ukrainians could just hit the engineering bride or the spans on both sides of it. I am not even sure if there is bridging equipment that can do this.
These types of bridges are more forgiving than many other types. The spans are somewhat separate from each other.
Lets remember the saying:
“Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands.”
meaning there is probably not very much extra spec on that bridge to take missile strikes...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).
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
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.