sross112

The way I read the NATO stuff with Trump was that it was all about the money. That's how I read almost everything that he did and does. Now. I am not a fan. I know that many of you will be tempted to call me names or belittle me in some manner, but I'm going to make an observation anyway. There might be more availability of weapons and equipment under him, as he would likely see it as some sort of US MIC super Walmart. No doubt there will probably be an end to aid packages, but there is a good chance of actual investment into production and sales. As long as someone else was paying the tab, he could yell from the podium that he "fixed it" and that it was a "win" for his constituents, the tax payer, and the economy. It would certainly be a win for Ukraine if everything was for sale and it sure might be, as I believe he is very myopic when it comes to foreign policy and security.

I don't think so until counter drone is solved for. The defender would still be able to send their drones to bust up the offensive operations, ISR for arty, etc. Until one side can deny drones I don't think there will be much movement.

The vast majority of attacks appear to be vehicle borne from all the videos we see, so the old school long strings of wire really wouldn't do much at all. The only places I could see it being useful would be hasty entanglements in contested locations. Inside buildings, tree lines, etc that will either considerably slow an assault or push the assaulting elements out of cover. And maybe filling defilades near defensive positions with entanglements would be useful as well. I remember seeing some videos from defensive positions that were well established prior to the invasion in 2022, but I don't recall seeing any wire obstacles there either. Maybe the armored vehicle centric type of combat made it to where there was little to no value in creating belts of wire even before? Does anyone remember seeing it used in the Donbas positions?

You are just a ray of sunshine today!! In the meantime, Maginot Line fortifications might come back into season. How else do you defend a line other than covering it in several feet of reinforced concrete with screened apertures to keep the drones out?

So the way I think through this is that the country with the biggest drone budget wins. Whoever can field the most UAV and C-UAV will control the battlespace and everyone else is toast. Therefore if you aren't the largest economy in the world you need to figure something else out. So the natural response will be nuclear proliferation as that is the only trump card left in the deck at that point and if you don't have nukes you are defenseless. I guess this is a good thing for defense budgets as all other systems can be scrapped and most countries will only have to maintain a few ICBMs. I reckon we can all look forward to a unprecedented period of peace among mankind or nuclear annihilation.

Isn't the number one thing that the UA troops were saying was the game changer for recent battles the glide bombing? This correlates to the drone discussion as that is what drones can't deliver yet: LARGE amounts of HE. They also can't support long range C4ISR like a HIMARS can. They don't have the kill radius that those tungsten balls do either. I'll give FPVs their due as they are the only indirect option that has proven effective on moving targets close to the front. That is where they are very useful is right on the front and close behind it. Anything deeper than that is a toss up. Look at the last airfield strike where quite a few long range UAV's went in. If you had a choice between that many UAV's or the same number of ATACMS, Tomahawks, or Storm Shadows which would you take? Which would give you the most damage and loss to the enemy? Now that will lead into the what is available question, and that is where this war is a disconnect between the ground in Ukraine and if the US was prosecuting the same conflict: resources. The UA has had to develop the UAVs and FPVs in order to fill a gap that is not present for the US. A thousand pages ago a lot of us agreed that C4ISR and ammo to hit the targets equals success. The UA has been starving for ammo. If we really want to test the theory of where these weapon systems fit into the future, give the UA the platforms and the ammo and see where the drones get meshed in. My bet is company level and below integral fire support and recon. For those reasons I don't believe that the UAV's will usurp the other systems, but they will become complementary. I do believe they will be very significantly expanded and should be prolific on the fire team to company level, but I don't see how in their current form they can replace 50lbs of explosive and fragmentation 50 or more kms away in a matter of minutes. The defensive primacy will only last until there are effective drone countermeasures, whatever they may be. Once that is done, those layered indirect fire platforms and the other members of the traditional combined arms will be back on deck to make things happen.

Ok, so looking at the actual poll, this is typical media/political spinning. The headline conveniently leaves out that 70% think that the US should either continue or increase aid to Ukraine with the only split being whether it is given with or without oversight. The actual question (question 4 of the poll) was "How much of a role do you believe the US should have in helping to negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine war?" 71% responded with either a major role or a minor role by combining the two choices. The question was not what the headline above says and neither was the answer. Later on question 7, 69% respond that they support the US urging Ukraine to negotiate a settlement to the war. Maybe that is because most people want wars to end? In the end a typical poll with wishy-washy questions that can be interpreted to the will of whatever political slant one wants. edited to add link to poll: https://quincyinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Quincy-Institute_rev-tabs.pdf

Maybe someone in the oil industry can explain it to me as I don't understand why the US would care about Russian oil exports. The US is a net exporter so doesn't less oil from Russia mean more money/profit for US big oil? More money for US big oil means more money for US politicians, so why would there be US outrage against strikes on Russian oil infrastructure? The only reason I can see is if Russian oil is financing US politicians to a greater degree than the US oil is, maybe that is it? Wouldn't the main consumers of Russian oil be the biggest ones to throw a fit? Like China and India?

The interception of FPV video doesn't seem overly problematic to me at this point. It is on a one way ride to a target and trying to let Ivan know to duck in time to avoid it on final approach is going to need a level of communication and networking that is a ways off by anyone's standards. The real use of intercepting video feeds will be from the recon drones. What they are looking at is good intel, but watching the video on their way back to their launch points will be much more valuable. Is that how we were seeing the Orlan crews getting hit a couple months ago? Probably be a good plan to implement standard procedure to launch one drone from somewhere other than your headquarters and bug out immediately after recovery to different location before the arty falls.

Did Putin actually refer to Ukraine as an equal sovereign political entity and not a wayward Russian possession? If so, that is a pretty big change in rhetoric out of Moscow.

EW question. There have been several references to the RA not being able to use their own drones due to their own EW. Is this a hazard of EW that it shuts everything, including your own stuff, down? Or is it able to be directed at a certain range of signals and if your stuff is different from the enemy's yours will be fine? I'm assuming that both sides are using a large array of commercial drones and military drones that operate on a plethora of signals and due to that the RA is just jamming everything? Seriously don't know much about this, so any clarification is appreciated. Thanks in advance.

How about throwing something like Javelins on a Sea Baby? Stand off range up to 4 km. Fire and forget so no need for a bunch of fancy gun stabilizers. Way lighter than the MG and accompanying ammo. A couple platforms launching 4 to 6 from a couple klicks out hitting the bridge and weapons points before the suicide boats roar in for the kill. Then maybe a small torpedo version. Smaller torpedo design for a range of a couple km. Like a mini unmanned PT boat without the need to approach into the small arms range and can be used again if it survives. Another thought watching these with our conversation on water obstacles is using these unmanned water platforms for logistic support and even casevac supporting bridgeheads. They would present fast small targets, have really good range and decent payload capacity. Could solve for supporting light forces with bunches of these whereas the heavy forces always need the bigger boats or bridges.

I honestly don't think Russia would respond with anything more than rhetoric. They've pulled key assets from the Finnish border and even key air defense assets from Kaliningrad to replace losses in Ukraine already. The leadership knows deep down that NATO is not an offensive alliance and they have no worries about being attacked by them without a provocation that couldn't possibly be ignored. If they didn't truly believe that, they wouldn't still be in this war fighting a "second rate" power and wasting all their hard to replace assets that would be critical to the defense of their homeland in the event of a NATO attack.

Both are right, but just like everything else in the real world the approach is situationally dependent. First rule is that you never engage in a breach and clear of an occupied building unless you HAVE to. The only time you have to is when there are non-combatants known to be inside and for whatever reason the building needs to be secured. Fighting inside buildings is very deadly and should be avoided at all costs. If you do have to take the building then the preferred method is to always enter as high as you can. It isn't always the roof, but if you can make entry somewhere other than the ground floor it is preferred. The ground floor is usually the most heavily defended and any competent defender will make every threshold a kill zone. Even if you can't get to the roof but you can enter the second story, it is generally a better option. The roof presents the tactical problems noted by others, but in a perfect world with all the right tools and transport it would be the way to go. If you do have to enter the ground floor, then you make your own door if at all possible. Explosive breaching is the preferred method as it generally makes the inside of the breached area uncomfortable for any defenders. If you don't have explosives you can use vehicles. Generally knocking the corner off a structure or punching a hole in the wall. These are messier and don't usually result in a nice clean entry point, but they tend to avoid the preset defenses and traps. The other thing to keep in mind in order to help mitigate other tactical problems is to always isolate the building before entry, either control approaches with fire or physical security. Failing to isolate allows the enemy options to escape or reinforce and therefore should be avoided if at all possible.

I personally think that would be way too complicated and there are several reasons it would be a non-starter. First is national security. You'd have to outsource the production to China or Iran as no western manufacturing company would touch it with a ten foot pole. The instant the public found out about it the crazy mobs would descend and cancel the company because their drone had the audacity to assume a soldier's gender. Second is the programming needed. The amount of variables that would need to be processed would probably make it the size of a Blackhawk in order to carry the computing power to actually filter through the possible genders to know whether or not the target existed. I thought that maybe to simplify things it could just read the soldier's nametag, but then I remembered how many times I've been somewhere that I was obviously looking at a human that was born with female bits and yet the nametag read Todd, Darryl, or Steve. So that won't work. So then maybe human feature mapping or something, but then there are the memories of interacting with people sporting the thin silky mustache and no adam's apple. By the time the computer was able to make a fair and reliable distinction the drone could be batted out of the air with a tennis racket. Third and the most worrysome in our day and age of expecting PGM strikes with our newly developed SSW (Scrotum Seeking Warhead), is the actual location of the target. The young may not realize the vast variations in altitude of the target that are somewhat dependent upon the age of the host. Any host over 40 that gets attacked by one programmed for the normal altitude would probably walk away with just some singed hair, grumbling about kids and their toys these days. This doesn't even factor in the environmental aspects. Is it 110F in the shade producing much lower hanging fruit? Or is -20F where the drone will have to gently massage them out of the abdominal cavity before detonation? Overall, I think it is much too complicated. It would be best to make them go for the kneecaps, as everyone has those, and then on very warm days or against older soldiers you could still get your desired effect without all the extra processing power.

If they don't need those big bulky containers, the SBU could have a ball with some of these inside Russia. Thinking along the lines of a half dozen or so a few clicks from the Russian base that the bombers firing missiles at Ukraine launch from. The absolutely horrifying thing about a lot of this tech that we are seeing is what it could do in terrorist hands.

My thoughts on how to crack it. The killers are the guns, the good L52s and good ammo paired with the good ISR. What the UA is lacking is sufficient guns with sufficient ammo to kill all the targets to then let the light forces take the ground. The ammo stocks have been eaten up so the guns they have are running on rations so there isn't much point in giving more guns now. Once the ammo production gets up then the guns can work and more guns can be given so they can attrite the defenders non stop. Pair that with the deep strike on the logistics in a relentless manner and that is how they will take back ground faster. So in my opinion, the biggest bottleneck holding back the UA is ammo for the big guns. Then not enough guns to cover the front with sufficient ammo. While that is being solved for the drone air superiority war needs solved for. Then I think some forms of mobile warfare (maybe light and highly mobile) can take place. Maybe even get the heavies back in the game. Until the ammo crisis is solved we will see more of the same.

Maybe the best thing for Europe and NATO security would be if someone in the US got elected that decided to pull the US out. Then those countries would have to do a serious look at their militaries and actually get on the same page for their mutual security. Russia has proven that she is not the Soviet Union and it is doubtful they could ever get to that point, so there is no reason a united NATO of only European countries couldn't defend itself against Russian aggression as that is the only real threat to Europe. Now I'm not saying I agree with it or that I would want to see that someone in that office, but after all the glaring deficiencies that have been shown by this conflict in both the militaries and the arms industries maybe it would be the kick start Europe needs to rely on itself and clean up some of the messes they have (not knocking on the Germans in this forum, but the German military and especially procurement could certainly use an overhaul to just name one). They would be criminally negligent not getting things straightened out after this anyway to stand on their own. All it takes is a full scale commitment to a war in the Pacific and the US would be of little help against Russia anyway, other than nuclear deterrent.

I'm thinking that European countries looked at the long game and have seen that the reserves of everyone but the US are pretty small. They gave a lot of former Soviet equipment right away and then have given what they can out of their stocks as well as providing money to buy it from other country's stocks. But I think they knew that wouldn't be enough in the long run. So we've seen Rheinmetal building a tank/AFV factory in Ukraine, Poland making deals wit the S Korean company for production licenses of SP Arty and now an IFV factory, I think Romania and maybe another Balkan country or two ramping up ammo factories, and who knows what some of the quieter countries are doing. Looks like they are setting up for the long game with new production instead of trying to further rely on legacy equipment or existing (probably sub optimal) production options. Put that together with the expansions in ammo production in the west and US. Then what don't we see or know? Has BAE or any of the other manufacturers expanded lines and signed contracts out of the news? How about the countries like Sweden and Finland that send stuff but don't advertise and also have a good manufacturing base? If there is that much that we have seen in the news, what else is going on? I think the people in charge are trying to get the pipeline in place for Ukraine, but it isn't overnight and I'd bet a lot of it isn't real public. Certainly could be wrong, but with the amount of money to be made I would be seriously surprised if there wasn't a lot going on behind the scenes by the western MIC. I certainly agree with what you are saying though, and in the meantime it would help the UA if they knew they had a steady flow instead of batches now and then. Personally, I thought from the beginning that the US should have stripped everything short of socks and skivies from all the National Guard units and sent it all over. With the focus on the Pacific I really doubt the commitment of heavy land forces in that arena and plenty of the reserve stocks could go as well. Especially looking at what we see here as the future of war, a lot of it is probably already obsolete and they just don't know it yet. Might as well send it over and get some use out of it.

Question for those in the know: Would it not be possible to equip the existing tanks with plows? Is there that much more to it than fabricating a package that can be mounted or dismounted as needed? I know it is a simplified idea, but I think of the snow plows in the northern climes. Dump truck in the summer. Slap the blade on and put the salt shaker in the back and it's a snow plow in the winter. Is there anything that needs added other than a plow that makes it impossible? I think it was @poesel that first brought up a lighter model. I keep thinking about those petal mines and think they would work great for that type of clearance. The problem is when the AT mine gets in the way. So maybe a small UGV that weighs under 100kg that would be sturdy enough to take AP hits all day, but not heavy enough to set off the AT mines?

I'm thinking that the biggest thing holding the UA back is a lack of guns and ammo. We've seen that the killers in this war is the combination of ISR and indirect fire. The UA doesn't have near enough systems or ammo to cover the entire front at once, more less to dominate anything other than a small operational area for a short period of time. Looking at the southern front this summer that seemed to be the MO, but the constraint was limited support. So I agree, it probably doesn't matter how many tanks are sent, but the number of tubes and shells can make a meaningful difference. I think the tanks and IFVs are still helpful for the final attack and support to clear the objective of whatever is left after a good pummeling, but without solving for air superiority (below and above 2000 feet) it would probably be suicide to do an actual breakout. So it is down to eating the elephant, one bite at a time. If the UA had enough support that process could be sped up and expanded to the point where they could do it faster, but it is all about controlling an operational area with ISR and fires. The assault element is now pretty much relegated to clean up. As for attacking with conventional mass, it looks to me like all that is left is speed. Surprise is pretty much gone. Armor able to stop anything above shrapnel and small arms appears to be unnecessary (anything sitting still or moving slow within arty range or atgm range is killable). So if you do want to attack in the conventional combined arms mode you are going to have to do so at speed and with the mentality that you are going to lose a lot to take anything. It is the only way I can see mass being successful and from the videos of the RA attacks they might as well "Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead" as the choice is to die slow or die fast, but at least you might get the chance to get on top of the defender if you go fast. Or the good ole RA model of having enough mass to overwhelm, like Bagration style mass. Where there is so much going on that the defender can't address everything and multiple breaks occur leading to collapse. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a bloody awful mess, just that it might be the only way for mass to be viable is a metric shat ton of it all over at once. Or it would be the Somme, hard to tell at this point.

Pretty sure it is a spoof on one of the Far Cry games where there is a shovel launcher that is ridiculous. https://farcry.fandom.com/wiki/Shovel_Launcher I remember one of my sons playing that and telling me about it. Made my brain hurt...... On a side note, a couple of us brought up the Power Armor a couple thousand pages ago, so glad to see us circling around to it! Now if one of these smart laser/nuclear/quantum physics guys on here could just throw together a Fusion Core to get them ripping that would be great.

I'm betting the plan is to push more across, probably as many as can be sustained. i say this because it looks to me like a really good diversionary attack. If they can clear the area to the west, like stated above, defending won't be as difficult or supply intensive. So at least a couple brigades will demand a response from the RA. Enough of a response to contain a couple brigades will have to be significant, especially if the RA is as short on reserves as we think in the south. The reason I think we will see this is because we haven't seen much at all where the offensive was grinding in the south for a couple of weeks now. This after reports of the main line being breached. That means those forces have had the chance to rest, refit, or be replaced by fresh forces. A good diversionary attack to strip the defenders a little thinner would be a great idea before resuming the offensive with the focus on a breakout instead of a grind. May be all wrong here, but just my tea leaf reading.

Finally a believable Ukrainian connection to Nordstream 2!!!

A lot of good points so far. I would add: Others stated that it reduces the number of missile threats, but I would think that the threat from ship launched missiles is probably greater than the air launched (could be wrong, open to other's opinions). The air traffic and bomber fleets seem to be watched pretty good and give the AD good prior warning to the numbers and direction of incoming targets, whereas ship launched ones don't telegraph intentions and can probably be launched from closer ranges thus reducing the ability to counter them. Another thing is every platform removed is one less patrolling or monitoring Ukraine's sea operations. Which in turn gives them more flexibility for movement and raids. Lastly, they are big hits and impossible to hide. There are lots of videos of tanks going boom, but Russians can shrug and say they have thousands of tanks. They can also say it is a UA tank as they use the same models. Other than the "smoking incidents" propaganda attempts, it is really hard to downplay the loss of these assets to the Russian people or the world.