BletchleyGeek

I think where the small UGV concept could really shine would be in your infantry battalion weapons company. Think of that recent video of the UA machinegun nest that the RA had such a hard time with that turned out to be a remote operated BTR turret. If the weapons company had UGVs hauling their weapon systems they could make for great fast tactical fire support offensively or defensively. Still haven't wrapped my head around the bigger UGVs but the light, medium and heavy concept that Steve just put up is making a little more sense to me. 
There has been some talk of the vehicle mounted 120mm mortar systems and their uses. Thinking of them, how long until the PGM out of one of those could be a loitering drone? Launch the round, 1000m up on the down path the casing falls apart and the drone activates. The gunner or commander has a visual link, selects the target and the drone executes. 1 shot, 1 kill. Could launch recon drones the same way. Could you have one at your company CP that launches recon drones on demand to the squad or platoon that requests one? With digital communications integration the drone just gets transferred to the Sgt or Lt on the front line and immediately the Company CO and FSO get the video feed of the targets as well? 
Man, some crazy sci fi stuff but I don't think it would be impossible. 

So sneaky but packing a punch like 1918 stösstruppen?
Truth be told, those large armoured charges that seem to be the concept (illusion?) for much doctrine have very rarely worked IRL (Prokhorovka comes to mind) unless the defender lacked effective anti tank weapons.
As you say mech is too hot, too loud, too easy to spot. The obvious fix is to make it cooler, and stealthier. That would probably mean getting rid of the need of having a crew and elaborate armour. I don't think that Steve's scenario "overweight people fighting wars from the mall" is close at all... securing comms is not a trivial problem (if fixable at all). Droning ISIS bastards (or just poor bastards often I am afraid) is one thing, going after a nation state with significant cyber/EW/anti-satellite capabilities is another matter. I think we will see more things like a "Stugna on wheels" with the operator relatively close but out of LOF (e.g. relaying via a small UAV), and the UGV being semi autonomous to handle loss of comms situations.
Also, winning wars by 1) having the other side being the one that goes on the offensive into a KZ, and 2) making them so uncomfortable that they give up and go home, I think is both smart and progressive.
I think this thread is close to solving the Riddle of Steel, Ukraine 2022 edition.
By the way, a warm and heartfelt salute to all Ukrainian folk on this thread in this very important date!

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.

So sneaky but packing a punch like 1918 stösstruppen?
Truth be told, those large armoured charges that seem to be the concept (illusion?) for much doctrine have very rarely worked IRL (Prokhorovka comes to mind) unless the defender lacked effective anti tank weapons.
As you say mech is too hot, too loud, too easy to spot. The obvious fix is to make it cooler, and stealthier. That would probably mean getting rid of the need of having a crew and elaborate armour. I don't think that Steve's scenario "overweight people fighting wars from the mall" is close at all... securing comms is not a trivial problem (if fixable at all). Droning ISIS bastards (or just poor bastards often I am afraid) is one thing, going after a nation state with significant cyber/EW/anti-satellite capabilities is another matter. I think we will see more things like a "Stugna on wheels" with the operator relatively close but out of LOF (e.g. relaying via a small UAV), and the UGV being semi autonomous to handle loss of comms situations.
Also, winning wars by 1) having the other side being the one that goes on the offensive into a KZ, and 2) making them so uncomfortable that they give up and go home, I think is both smart and progressive.
I think this thread is close to solving the Riddle of Steel, Ukraine 2022 edition.
By the way, a warm and heartfelt salute to all Ukrainian folk on this thread in this very important date!

I like the thinking, let's keep that up, however - there are issues
Ok, so let's unpack this a bit .
Area.  So a mechanized combat team in the advance over open country has up to a 2km frontage - giver or take.  We then need to extend that bubble to at least 8km, so double the range of the ATGM, so that the next tactical bound is secured, or at least scanned, before the mech force gets there.  So adding that all up we are talking an op box of about 16 sq kms, or in more tactical terms: 16,000,000 sq ms.  Why sq ms?  Well a 2-man ATGM team such as Javelin, takes up about 4 sq m (and I am being generous - but maybe they have quad or buggy for quick get away).  So the game here is to try and spot two humans, with little or zero vehicles that take up a 4 sq m area in an overall area of 16 million sq ms...and sustain it.
Finding.  Finding two humans in cover on the a conventional battlefield is still the third hardest ISR challenge that exists.  Even with TI, which is not designed to find people it is designed to find vehicles, is going to be severely challenged in doing this.  The average human being runs at 36 and change degrees C, which is only about 10 degrees hotter than ambient air in summer in temperate regions.  Then they wear clothes, modern uniforms actually are designed for some of this (https://www.innovationintextiles.com/protective/hohenstein-develops-textiles-for-screening-against-ir-radiation-for-use-in-military-uniforms/).  Next they are trained to stay under tree canopy, or dig into the ground, tall grass etc.  So this is not like those wands at the airport that are going to squawk when they find your keys.  A number of 500m was tossed around for a Tac UAV to be able to spot a human with TI, but I seriously doubt it if that human is half decently trained and equipped.  UAVs are the best bet, but it will not be easy by any stretch.  Those humans on the ATGM-side do not have the same problem as mech is huge, hot and loud - we can see them from space-based now - so this is not an advantageous exercise for the attacker from the get go...tale as old as time. 
Fixing.  The next major problem with the proposal is the role of SF "infiltration" as the lead edge of this screen.  I like where this is going, very hybrid, however: 1) that is a lot of "SF" - in reality decently trained light infantry would fill this role - to cover off all that ground, even doing "spot" close recce.  They are also going to take casualties so they will need medivac and support, Sustaining this is not small but doable.  2) The entire mech force can now move at the speed of "SF Infiltration" which is damned slow compared to mech advances - think walking speed.  So now a mech force which is designed to punch holes and advance quickly to an enemies rear areas to bring the righteous hand of gawd almighty to REMFs is crawling behind light infantry infiltration...kinda defeats the point of mech in the first place.
Finishing.  One big piece missing from the diagrams is indirect fires.   The logic of spotting small ATGM teams and then dropping the sky on them - rinse and repeat, makes sense even if it is at a human crawl.  However, that nasty indirect fire points in two directions.  The logistics train for a 2 man ATGM team hiding on 4 sq ms is pretty modest - like bag of trail mix and some toilet paper, modest.  The logistical train for this proposed hybrid advance mech model is pretty significant, and will also be seen from space.  So unless that SF infiltration extends out past artillery range, the tail of this mech force, the mech force itself, and with HIMARs, the parking garage said mech force was hiding in before it moved out, are going to get lit up and blown all to hell before the ATGM teams stop bird watching and start shooting. 
So we are back at Fog Eating Snow.
Why bring the mech force along at all?  In fact until you completely break an enemy line past the artillery support distance, mech forces would be held back until pre-conditions are met, namely - degrade enemy ISR, degrade indirect fires, collapse logistical system and crack the line.  This is firepower-attrition-to-manoeuvre, not the other way around which is in all our doctrine - [although honestly, I have to ask myself when have we ever actually done that?  We always lead with an air campaign that makes the Valkyries look like a chicken dance.] 
Anyway, SF infiltration, yes...slow but proven one of the few real ways to advance in this war.  Infiltration with all sorts of ISR to find, and then isolate any heavier force concentration - going to be a lot of screening battles, but their sneaky peeky ATGM teams do not matter...cause we didn't bring any "Ts" during this phase.  Instead of WW1 levels of dumb massed fires, back up that infiltration with precision fires to shtomp anything that they can find with accuracy - rinse and repeat, and continue to support with deep strike on anything that even looks high value - particularly C4ISR, EW, Logistics and throw in an airfield or two for the sunbathers.
You project this as a series of tactical undecidings of their operational integrity, until their system starts to collapse.  Here breadth is likely more important than speed.  You project corrosive force along their entire operational system, and when they buckle...then you send in the mech/armor to do the deep stabby work, before they can re-establish a defence line, tempo here will still matter...I think.
It is a theory, at least.  I have no idea if it would work - and it is not without problems of its own.

Let's discuss RU infantry and mech forces issue in the current war. Actually, it is not one but two related yet distinct issues.
1. RU lack of infantry
RU army does not and cannot have good infantry force. it hurts them a lot. They literally unable to assault UKR strongholds in timely manner and have to wait till artillery (or TOS) demolish everything. So, RU would benefit a lot from having a good solid infantry force. However, it would not help much with armor issue.
2.  RU armor cannot operate near the frontline
Having enough infantry would not allow RU armor to operate near the frontline. You cannot advance quickly due to ATGMs. You cannot fight ATGMs from cover because drone adjusted arty. The infantry itself does not help with either ATGMs or with Arty. So, this issue is different from RU lack of infantry and requires a different solution.
3. What could help
As I said, danger zone around front line affects ATGMs as well. Even two-man Javelin team is not safe. It is better than RU ATGMs teams but it is still dangerous for them to be there.
But what if the danger zone is not explicitly linked to the frontline? Can we wrap it around our tank? Well, actually yes. 
Drones create danger zones.  So, you can easily do something like this. 

Drones with thermals can significantly complicate life of any ATGM.
You might ask why RU do not do it like this now? Answer is - they want, but they do not have drones for infantry and artillery which is their priority now. As soon as they get enough drones for arty they will start equipping tanks units with drones. I read RU Nats post that top brass already approved general ideal of equipping every AFV with personal drone.
But how we deal with 4 km ATGMs? Well, you add some more drones with recon units

 
And finally, beforehand you infiltrate special force teams with even more drones! You use them to observe convenient spots for ATGMs

Let's summarize - to enable mech maneuver we must protect the mech force with drone bubble that can detect ATGMs teams before they can engage mech force. 

It is crazier than that, Light Infantry - which many thought an obsolete concept- have played a central role in UA success. Mech still has a big visible AFV attracting a lot of attention and fires, as the RA found out.  We even had reports of RA relying on Light Infantry.
No matter how one slices it, the denominator of war is still an armed human in a hole.  I suspect we are going to see all sorts of Light Infantry augmentation technology booming.
The big 3 from this war remain - light infantry, indirect fires - of many types and unmanned.  All tied together (or not in RA case) by C4ISR.

Disagree and we need to be very cautious here.  I have been reading a lot on Pre- WWI and the signs were up front and readily visible that warfare had shifted to the defensive as early as the US Civil War.  European powers talked themselves out of it completely by seeing all those examples as "aberration". 
Second, Ukraine has been employing the same methods throughout.  Even in the Donbass, Russia was pounding away WW1 style, advancing by 100m per day because Ukraine could still find, fix and finish any mech armored manoeuvre while it was forming up, while HIMAR-ing (yep, it is a verb now) the RA logistics chain.  It is the same problem, the RA just tried to solve it a different way, and it still did not work.
Now we must see what Ukraine does, but there have been plenty of signals that their offensives will look very different. 

The problem is artillery.  High quality infantry are not artillery proof and with ISR doing what it is, employing infantry anyway except dispersed or under the cover of WW1 style artillery (literally see that chart Poesel posted.) seems problematic.
I am not sure how the best infantry in the world deal with being spotted from kms away and hammered with high precision artillery, all the while their logistics train is also being hammered by precision deep strike.
In order to manoeuvre thru that one needs to solve for a lot.  And even then, a small two man team can kill and MBT at 4+ kms with 80-90 percent accuracy after having the target handed off by satellite and tac UAVs.
Crazy days.   

Sniffed around where, if you don’t mind me asking?  I ask because if your assessment is accurate then something has definitely gone wrong with RA armour.  The problem is that I don’t think we know if it is uniquely a Russian problem (eg not enough infantry) or indicative of a much larger shift.
2km can longer be considered “long range” in a war there 250+ kms is in play.  In fact I am not even sure it is medium range when a man-portable ATGM can hit out to 3+ kms at a reported 90% accuracy.  
Using tanks as some sort of mobile armoured long range snipers “from urban” areas as opposed to a fundamental component of combined arms manoeuvre is a major break from conventional land warfare doctrine.  One, that if confirmed, likely has to do with the nearly 2000 Russian tanks lost in this war, which is starting to rival Iraqs losses in the Gulf War.
Further, this is beyond the vulnerabilities of logistical support and more in line with a front end impact.  Keeping sniper tanks gassed and fed ammo will still be a challenge - perhaps less so than offensive manoeuvres- but using tanks as mobile AT guns in what sounds like a purely defensive role is a devolution as well.
As to the cover of buildings, NLOS ATGMs have already done their job if those tanks are huddled behind high rises.  PGM artillery can finish the job from there as we have learned that there is nowhere to hide on this battlefield - at least if you are Russian.

Well they're getting it in spades now ... wonder why the United Kingdom supplied shedloads of NLAWs etc to Ukraine?

I have had some weird and some not so weird connections to this war:
Right out of college I worked at a studio that developed a Javelin trainer for the U.S. Army. I don't know if it's the one you used, but ours was based on a popular commercial game engine.
Later, I consulted on a suicide drone program. They never told me what the program was called, but it was designed to target vehicles (I wasn't involved in actually developing the drone or anything - the team behind that was looking into whether they could use some software I had developed to help them iterate faster in testing).
Those are the not so weird connections. The weird connection is the Russians and their "Ukrainian Nazis' copies of the Sims 3" from earlier in the war, as, until somewhat recently, I worked on The Sims.

I just finished going through the whole thread now, but I see all the comments were made already
If the war lasts for say 1 more year, it can easily get to the industrial competition between countries supporting UA and Russia, which the latter will undoubtedly loose. As @Beleg85 mentioned, the math points to end of 2023, but that is for general lack of shells. As you wrote, some stuff will run out much earlier, depriving RU of some crucial capabilities. Apart from Iskanders and Tochkas ( about which we already aren't hearing much lately...) I'd be looking at BM-30 especially, the only real 50+ km system at RU disposal. In contrast, comparably simplistic math tells US that us has about 13 months worth of GMLRS supply with expenditure of 100/ day, not counting the ongoing manufacturing (with UA expenditure being considerably lower than that in my opinion). This looks really hopeless for RU in the long term.
 

i think the word you're looking for is 'posterity' but otherwise i agree with you 100%, blazing.
 
cheers,
rob
 

Cracked me up real good:
Also, a Soviet joke that is unrelated but also made me laugh today:
- Why bees have a queen and not a first secretary?
- Cause they want to make honey, not s**t.

Maybe a helicopter flavor object with HQ right next to it is feasible?

From this forum's Kabul correspondent ... let's well and truly bury the Afghan thing.  As is generally the case, the most obvious explanation is usually the right one.  The timelines were simply those dictated by the February 2020 US-Taliban Agreement.  Biden arrived in office with a short timeline in which to take the decision to follow through with the withdrawal commitment in the US-Taliban Agreement.  The decision was announced on April 14, 2021.  According to the Washington Post article:
"Just weeks before the essay appeared, Biden and Putin had held a June 16 summit that both declared was “constructive.” At that point, Ukraine was a concern, but one that White House officials felt could be dealt with. As the White House delegation left the meeting, held in Geneva, a senior Biden aide would later recall, “we didn’t get on the plane and come home and think the world was on the cusp of a major war in Europe.”
The article states that it wasn't until October that the US was confident enough in its assessment that Russia would attack to take it to the President or put another way, sometime after the last US service member walked up the ramp of a C-17 in Kabul.

LOL!  Sad, looks like they could only afford CMx1 - Steve, you might want to get a press release out to explain that BFC did not violate international sanctions. 

Hi All,
Sorry for yet another thread sidetrack but to update re @Haiduk's laptop etc:
It's arrived here in Canada at long last. I'll post photos when my phone recharges.
The funds raised came to about $1700 so we've gotten a Laptop for Haiduk's wife and major pc part upgrades for his own PC. Those I will be buying today/tomorrow.
I'll be sending everything to Przemsyl in Poland, with a reliable family member who lives there, on this Monday coming, Aug 22nd.
They'll hand off to someone Haiduk sends to pick up during that week.
If the UKR Law is relaxed a bit then maybe he can pick it up in person, we'll see.
 
POSTSCRIPT
This process has been badly delayed on my end, due to a heavy couple of months for me, personally and work-wise. Especially the personal side. It's been...difficult...to focus outside the household for a while. But things have finally stabilised, the laptop is here beside me and the pc parts are a short walk away to buy, once Haiduk confirms his choices. Everything is moving forward again.
 

Final point on Afghanistan, Biden was strongly opposed by many top brass in the military to retain a token force in Afghanistan. Despite a firestorm of negative news coverage and a drop in opinion polling that occurred at the time of the withdrawal, that has seen persistent underwater marks since then, my belief he is of sound mind, I think I can propose that the decision being made to leave illustrates his ability to not be senile, nor be controlled by other interests, especially when it was a unpopular one opposed by many, that continues to drag on his polling today.
Why I see his decision as not being inept, I mean I already laid it out, by the time a peace deal was signed by the prior administration, Afghanistan's security situation was not good whatsoever. By 2020, horrid.
For Biden to betray the agreement, with the little remaining U.S forces on hand in 2020, would have probably caused a full scale Taliban offensive to begin, at the least requiring intensive U.S air support to maintain what the government held and I don't bet against the fall of major cities anyhow, and so instead of a quiet withdrawal from Kabul with the Taliban looking onward, we could have had a much more hostile retreat with the Taliban nipping at our forces and again, the force needed to secure a withdrawal and evecuation of civilians requires much more forces than the original remaining drawdown amount. 
The idea that the Afghan government and military would somehow give their lives for a U.S withdrawal, is ridiculous as well. Once that deal was signed, it was over. You can't sign away your allies and expect them to carry water so you can leave and the amount of Afghan troops needed to defend Kabul or any other major city, that amount does not match the numbers able for them to board the last plane to leave.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/28/top-generals-afghanistan-withdrawal-congress-hearing-514491
Edit, On that note, if we want another example of a military making the wrong decisions aside from Russia, the American generals arguing for a token force in Afghanistan is a great example. Either they would have been forced to pull out, or as some news speculated, part of Biden's refusal to entertain a token force was the likelihood of it being a tripwire designed to increase American forces. Obviously a few thousand is not enough to hold and when down the line, the Joint Chiefs lay out the dismal situation, with a evacuation more akin to Durkirk, or the option of increasing force and prevent utter humiliation, I'm sure Biden would have felt tricked.

Well the U.S warned Ukraine about a airborne landing operation with the intent to seize the Kiev airport intact, plus special operations teams to hunt and kill the Ukrainian leadership, in January according to the article, I don't see why Russia would want to kill the Ukrainian leadership if the objective is to simply take the Donbas, and a landing force at a airfield requires a larger offensive to open up supply lines to Kiev as well. 
The U.S also disclosed prior to the invasion, (actually disclosed, I remember pointing it out pre-invasion on other online forum locations) plans for cleansing the occupied regions of Pro-Ukrainian civil society, government and other important figures, and that applied country-wide, so again, indicating annexation of most or all of the country. 
As for Ukraine's leadership and much of the country not believing in a full scale invasion....well i dare say part of the reason for the destruction of Russian-Ukrainian relations and rabid anti-Russian attitudes in Ukraine has to do with the full scale invasion occurring and willingness on the part of Russians to let (or support) Ukraine be turned into a puppet state and puppet people. A betrayal of what was familiar relations that many Ukrainians had still subscribed to somewhat till recently. 
And in regards to not believing, not believing is different than preparing, and we know that Ukraine did prepare, whatever Zelensky and co's sentiments on it actually occurring. 
 

I will point out withdrawal where you are effectively abandoning thousands of people, and millions overall, there is no solution that you can salvage out a controlled, planned withdrawal that isn't effectively reinvading Afghanistan. How are you supposed to bolster a government that was collapsing that quickly in order to maintain evacuation routes? (A deal signed by Trump mind you) You can't, so you need to send in a significant force to secure the capital, except what about the rest of the major cities, now you have what, several tens of thousands of U.S personnel reinvading the major cities of Afghanistan? 
And obviously, you need to expand logistical footprint to ensure those thousands of U.S personnel are effectively supplied....
Afghanistan is surrounded by Iran on one side, Pakistan on the other, the central asian republics to the north, none of them have U.S bases to set up the logistics needed for U.S maintenance of long term presence in Afghanistan and i severely doubt any of them would be willing to allow it. 
Part of the deal was the withdrawal of U.S personnel, if the deal was violated, sure the U.S could relaunch air operations to reinforce the country but how would the U.S overfly these units? Pakistan? Sure, where did the Taliban leadership operate from until Kabul fell? Quetta. 
We all stare at Russia defending the west bank of the Dnieper, meanwhile we were trying to prop up a government that was land locked and surrounded by countries that are hostile to the U.S and would happily let the U.S burn itself forever in Afghanistan. 
No, i seriously doubt the evacuation could have turned into something of a "clean withdrawal", had we decided to "properly plan" it, all that would have resulted would be flooding it with thousands of troops against a insurgency about to achieve victory, I'm totally sure they would have sat down and let us retake their gains in the urban regions without a single American death....
In 2018, 70% of the country was already controlled or had active Taliban presence. 2015, nearing the end of the drawdown to about 15k NATO forces, this NYT article states that the UN considered half of the country's districts to have high or extreme violence threat levels, High or Extreme levels mean usual UN presence or movement is curtailed, half the country was off limits for the UN in 2015. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/12/world/asia/afghanistan-taliban-united-nations.html
Again, we absolutely tut tut at Russia thinking it could conquer a country of 44 million with only 200k troops, meanwhile you suggest keeping a country of 40 million under control with what? Only 10k-20k troops from collapse? Say only the urban areas, thats 10 million, not nearly enough either. 
Moving on from unrealistic notions, 
In a GUR controlled unit of the International Legion, serious allegations of abuse, violence, and failed leadership have arose, and this occurred despite higher levels of the Ukrainian government being informed. 
https://kyivindependent.com/investigations/suicide-missions-abuse-physical-threats-international-legion-fighters-speak-out-against-leaderships-misconduct
 

It's me.  I've been holding off saying anything just because then I'll get all sorts of pressure from everyone with an opinion on how it should be done.  Hold on a minute, phone ringing off the hook..... 
Hi Joe.  What?  Just send the f'n rockets already will ya? 
Sorry I'm back anyway where was I?
Seriously, there isn't a single person.  There are entire communities, military, intel, state. etc  Where I give Biden credit is
1. He's listening to his experts
2.He's following through and doing his portion of the job
3.He isn't grandstanding for points.  Just slow and steady and doing what smarter people are telling him we need to do.
The issues pointed out earlier about mistrust of intel is based on situations where our politicians wanted to do something and didn't want to listen to anything counter.  That's where you get into trouble trying to justify what you've already decided to do.
 

The US didn’t have “proof” because that’s not the way it works. It had strong intelligence from many sources within the Russian military and government pointing in that direction while the shambolic nature of the preparation gave naysayers something to point to if they were so inclined. I get it…the Iraq War was just one of the times where the US pushed something that turned out to be wrong and it is reasonable for other nations to be skeptical. This was not one of those times. The troop deployments were there to see. The statements by the Russian government on where their thinking was vis a vis a continued Ukrainian state were clear. France and Germany simply didn’t want to believe it because they didn’t like what they were hearing. That’s ok too! But the Biden team got it right and deserve every bit of credit for how they prepped the diplomatic ground and provided (and continue to provide) materiel support.

It feels like with perceptions of Tsunami - Russia (and many others) expect it to look like this, big,  dramatic, pure cinema:

But the reality is this,  "slower", lower,  but more extesive, coming in multiple  waves and is just as impossible to defend against: