db_zero

I have to wonder if the Armada thing was also pumped up by certain segments of the Western world to boost research and spending on weapons.

As crazy as it sounds there are still lines not to be crossed in the world of geopolitics. It's weird and doesn't make sense to a lot of people, but it is what it is. Another factor is Javelins, Matadors, PF3 and Stingers are considered defensively oriented weapons. Tanks on the other hand are considered offensive weapons.

Pretty costly and has limited arcs of coverage. Seemed to have worked pretty well against RPGs in actual use, but also dangerous to nearby infantry. That's another disadvantage of many APS systems. Any friendly infantry nearby is at risk.

The Armada exists. It does have top attack APS. Whether it works is another question altogether. I've seen videos where the British Challenger already has a top attack APS system. The problem with the Armada is the cost. Its much more expensive and maintaining it would also be far more expensive and require a cadre of skilled technicians. The Russian economy can't support the acquisition of a large force of them.

Don't know if this has already been posted: https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/feeding-the-bear-a-closer-look-at-russian-army-logistics/ With a new offensive underway, will the Russian learn from previous mistake and increase the logistical sustainment model?

When 4.0 came out I created some test scenarios and APS was working when I fired ATGMs at the Armada, except for top sector attacks. I posted on the forums and they said top sector was not modeled in yet. Don't know if that's been added. Also the NLAW has a bug and still needs to get fixed.

Great sim, but when first released I played around with the 4.0 version, I tried using Armada's vs Javelin teams and because they didn't model APS from the top attack sector, the Javelins always killed the Armadas. Don't know if that's been changed. Apparently the rotary assets are not working properly too.

One very big difference. The Polish M1s are not actively engaging Russian forces at the moment. Ukrainian M1s would be.

Do we know that for sure? An assumption was made earlier that M109 Paladins were being sent based off a picture but it turns out towed artillery is what’s really being sent.

I highly doubt we’ll see M1s sent soon. The strategy is to slowly turn up the heat and kill the frog slowly…

This is still a proxy war not a general Russia-NATO war. Russia would never stand up to a general NATO-Russia conventional conflict. That leaves nukes. The general belief is Putin is crazy enough to resort to nukes. Calling nuclear bluffs is something policy makers need to consider carefully. Keep in mind before Russia actually invaded Putin was considered bluffing by many. We also have other NATO partners who might object to sending arms that are considered an escalation. NATO is united and this could fracture it. Any war would be fought on their territory. There seems to be different levels of willingness to confront Russia directly and risk actual conflict.

Sounds like splitting hairs but sending planes and setting up a base are 2 different things. Like it or not one of the main goals is avoiding a larger expanded conflict and nukes being used. This is still a proxy war. The last thing the West needs or wants is a general Russia-NATO war.

Setting up logistical and repair shops in Poland invites Russian attacks.

The Ukrainians have already been supplied with C4ISR before the conflict started. It’s just not been heavily publicized. NATO has already stated they are providing Ukraine with info and intelligence and the C4ISR systems are designed to integrate with existing NATO assets. Thats why the public announcement by NATO followed by the sinking of the Moskva the next day was interesting. The sea is a big space and finding a large ship isn’t an easy task. It was known NATO was feeding intel and information but perhaps after the revelations of atrocities, more info got fed and the whole announcement and sinking of Moskva was also sending a message.

M1 tanks would pose some tricky political and logistical challenges. I think the calculation is it would be seen as a major escalation by Russia who already complained about the last arms shipment and a complete slaughter of the Russian army which the M1 could facilitate could lead to nukes being used. Aside from the logistical challenges of fuel-which the M1 uses in prodigious quantity and ammo which is heavy and bulky, where would they come from in large quantities? If we took the ones in storage in the US they would have to be railed to ports then loaded onto ships. That would take months. Airlifting them is hugely inefficient and the airlift capacity is probably already stretched.

Russians may be learning from past mistakes. https://news.az/index.php/news/us-official-russia-is-learning-from-failures-in-north-and-applying-lessons-on-new-focus-in-east-and-south

The lessons from Ukraine is you need to conduct proper reconnaissance, combined arms tactics and have mech infantry that is well trained and motivated to leave their IFVs close and kill enemy AT teams-something the Russian infantry has been reluctant to do. Certain tweaks will be made- drone killing vehicles that can keep pace with armored formations and APS systems that get lighter. You’ll probably start seeing the smaller switchblade like drones mounted on armored vehicles specially programmed for use on armored vehicles to hunt down and suppress ATGM operators. The recent pictures of the unmanned ground vehicles begs the question-how would that do in a heavy artillery barrage? Looks like it would not last long. Even a nearby blast from a 155mm would flip it over.

On paper the Leopard1s appear hopelessly outdated and of limited use, but so were the Sherman’s used by the Israelis up until the 70s. The people manning them mattered more than the specs on paper.

Unfortunately it appears to be a very real possibility. Putin knows he's a dead man if the Ukraine venture fails. He has nothing to lose. I would hope the military doesn't comply, but the purges Putin has executed may be so he can put people in place who will carry out his orders no matter what.

One of the least talked about item on media is the C4ISR and battle management systems differences between Ukraine and Russia. It was mentioned besides re-training the Ukrainian military after 2014, one of the items provided to Ukraine C4ISR equipment and training. RT the media outlet for Russia’s aired a bunch of segments on the New Russian military and it didn’t appear that Russia invested in C4ISR or had the same level of sophistication and resources dedicated to it as the West. Without C4ISR and battle management systems you’re not going to be able to conduct complex combined arms or coordinate between land and air operations well in a fast moving environment. I wouldn’t be surprised if Russia are still using pencils and paper, besides also forced to use non-secure communications. Ukraine on the other hand was given modern C4ISR and battle management systems that integrates with outside NATO assets. The billions the Russian military lost over the years to graft and corruption could have bought a modern C4ISR and battle management infrastructure that could easily have been a huge force multiplier for the Russian military. On another note-if we still have TOW missiles and M113s with the hammerhead launchers in usable condition, they might be worth sending. M113s with 81mm and 4.2 mortars would also be useful. Appears like more artillery, MLRS systems and a lot more artillery ammo is required.

The US Army is going to select a new light tank to equip their light units this Summer. The General Dynamics Griffen2 is the only competitor left so looks like that will be the winner of contract.

The old M113 getting more use. Battle taxi to move infantry around and protect against artillery.

Like others I though we were sending SP artillery but I then saw that it was not SP but towed. In any case it looks like the artillery ammo situation is a potential logistical headache in the making. 155mm, 152mm, 122mm and rockets. The Germans and Sweeds have what some call the best SP artillery. The M109s would also be up there.

Well that was a mistake on my part. The 18 guns are towed artillery not Self Propelled.

I'm seeing reports that Ukraine is seriously concerned about running out of artillery ammunition. They are using thousands of rounds a day. They have Russian artillery, not Western artillery at the moment and the 40,000 rounds the US is sending isn't going to last long. I was under the assumption the 40,000 rounds was for the 18 155mm howitzers being sent, but it may be Russian ammo we had in storage that can be used with the Russian artillery Ukraine has? it looks like the Russian artillery Ukraine is using is different calibers. Can you use 155mm ammo in 152mm artillery? I would think not. I also believe some of the Ukraine artillery is 122mm and the rocket launchers are a completely different story. I remember years ago I was told the Russians developed 82mm mortars so they could use captured 81mm mortar ammo, but it doesn't sound like its possible to use 155mm ammo in a 152mm gun doesn't make sense. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-may-begin-new-offensive-soon-us-officials-say-ukraine-runs-stoc-rcna24655