db_zero
-
Posts
1,553 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by db_zero
-
-
8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
So Ukraine should give back all the Javelins, NLAWs, PzF3, Matadors, and other weapons that are blowing Russian tanks to pieces now and for the past 7 weeks?
Seriously, I think you fail to recognize that line has already been crossed and is continuing to be crossed even without M1s.
Plus, no M1s will be engaging Russians for maybe 4-6 months best case scenario. The war should be over by then.
Steve
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.
-
6 minutes ago, Huba said:
There were few T-80UM2 with old Drozd APS captured or destroyed by Ukrainians, there were pictures floating around. Nothing meaningful though.
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.
-
4 minutes ago, Phantom Captain said:
Apparently none of their APS systems are present in Ukraine so I wouldn't expect them to be working on the Armata either. To me the Armata is like this big sci-fi fantasy vehicle that isn't real. I'll believe it when I see it. It sure is fun to pretend though!
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?
-
10 minutes ago, Armorgunner said:
Do we know that theese APS works at all? Or that it works against diving attack munitions, like the Jav?
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.
-
9 minutes ago, Phantom Captain said:
I freaking LOVE Steel Beasts.
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.
-
12 minutes ago, Huba said:
There were suggestions for some time, but now it's confirmed. It shouldn't be different to repairing M1s in Poland, a very small escalation at best:
One very big difference. The Polish M1s are not actively engaging Russian forces at the moment. Ukrainian M1s would be.
-
14 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
BTW, I am surprised nobody pointed out that the M113s that seem to be on the way to Ukraine are most likely M577 Command Posts, not AFVs for infantry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M577_Command_Post_Carrier
At least that is the most logical type to send over and it was also seen on the rail cars with the M109s.
Steve
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.
-
2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
Wrong. Russia is already characterizing this as a Russia-NATO war. In fact, it was one of their primary stated reasons for going to war over Ukraine.
Russia just last week sent a formal letter warning the US to stop sending things to Ukraine. It's made similar statements to European countries.
Plus, Javelins were sent over a while ago and it even warranted mention by Shoigu (I think it was him) in some of his rants right before the war started. And since then what has happened? THOUSANDS of ATGMs have been sent from a dozen countries. And Russia knows how effective that has been in helping defeat it's attacks. And yet, no nukes.
If he is that crazy then he'll use them with or without Abrams on the way.
Sure, and I am one of those who repeatedly says that is the reason why we shouldn't have NATO aircraft laying Russian' forces waste in and around Mariupol or elsewhere. THAT is *NOT* an incremental move over Russia's redlines and it would definitely risk a nuclear response. Sending better tanks vs. crappy tanks is not in the same category.
Steve
I highly doubt we’ll see M1s sent soon. The strategy is to slowly turn up the heat and kill the frog slowly…
-
10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
This is where I think NATO needs to call Putin's bluff. Remember, EVERYTHING that is being done to Russia now was threatened with nukes, including removing Russia from SWIFT.
What the West has done so far is an incremental pushing beyond whatever Russia's red line is. This is the same thing that Putin has done to the West for 20+ years. And guess what? It works.
Plus, if all goes well Russia will be knocked out of the war before this sort of Abrams line crossing thing really matters.
Anything non-Soviet is going to require pretty much a total infrastructure investment by the West, so might as well not waste time trying to gear Ukraine up to maintain something 60 years old and instead spend just about the same energy to support true frontline systems.
Again, refer to my two categories. Category 1 is something that is short term, Category 2 is something that is longer term. ANY form of ANY tank that is not Soviet based is Category 2.
For Abrams, I'd take some out of the forward deployed stocks and get Ukrainian crews training on them while the ones for them to use are got over in theater.
Steve
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.
-
4 minutes ago, Huba said:
As is landing transport planes there or doing the whole weapons transfer thing. We are past worrying about it really.
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.
-
1 minute ago, Huba said:
Up to 2 weeks for ship to arrive to Gdańsk from Houston, less from East Coast. 1 Day rail transport to UA border. Refitting those tanks after taking them out of storage would probably consume the most time, plus training the crews.
Setting up logistical base, repair shops etc in eastern Poland can be done in parallel to these activities I think.
Setting up logistical and repair shops in Poland invites Russian attacks.
-
4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
If I had to pick one thing to supply Ukraine with it would be high resolution C4ISR support. This appears to be one of the most lopsided information wars in history, and it needs to stay that way.
C4ISR that can render high resolution information, not only where the Russian's are but where they are likely going to be, up to and including remote support staffs in NATO HQs. This means that the entire Russian system is visible in real time, all the time. This will mean that UA targeting will be much more efficient, rendering a higher kills per munition ratio. Their own manoeuvre will be well out ahead of Russian mass. Critical nodes like Russian C2, logistics, arty and engineering are seen and targeted. The UA can see the "time and place" for conventional c-attks as opposed to trying to feel for them.
This all creates a feedback loop to the strategic information/narrative war, which then reinforces the western support.
It is not so much the hardware at this point, it is the software. I mean, of course we keep pushing munitions but major platform shifts are for after this war or unless this war last years, which I am not betting on.
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.
-
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.
-
11 minutes ago, Huba said:
My impression is that those 18 guns and ammo are really a token force that won't have too much impact on the situation on the ground. 40000 is more than 2000 rounds per gun, this sound really excessive, unless you do WW1 style preparatory barrages.
What I think those guns really are is a first step toward UA moving to NATO calibers. 152mm rounds supply will dry up at some point. Already Slovakia sent (or will send) some of SP Zuzana howitzers, and more NATO 155 guns will follow. There were talks about buying some PzH 2000 from Rheinmetall stocks- this might be possible if German government finally gets it's act together; maybe Lithuania will be willing to part with their too. Those would introduce a radical change in capability for UA army, those are first class even compared to newer designs. Ultimately though, the only NATO army that has significant stocks of mothballed artillery is the US army and if this war is prolonged, Ukraine will have to look there for equipment.
In the meantime 122 mm rocket (RM70 and BM21) and tube artillery (Polish 2S1) is making its way to Ukraine as we speak. There are considerable stocks of those available in Eastern European NATO armies. Poland had 13 modernized battalions of 2S1 at one point, we could part with considerable part of these I think.
What is interesting to me is that IIRC apart from these 18 155 guns from the last US arms package, it was mentioned that other long range system was to be delivered. I can only assume that it means HIMARS or M270. Those coupled with GMLRS rockets would be a complete game changer in artillery war I think.
Let's see what happens, situation seems to be developing really quickly and it looks like more and more weapon systems seem to be on the table again.
Actually I don't think it was stated explicite what guns were to be delivered. My bet were M198 or M177, as those are easier to airlift. Video with M109s on rail cars in Poland showed equipment moving to the Baltics I think.
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.
-
3 hours ago, db_zero said:
Looking at the 18 SP guns the US sent and the radar that tracks incoming rounds. 18 SP guns doesn't sound like much. My guess is 18 is a number that can be competently maned and maintained by the Ukrainians at the moment. These are not typical artillery pieces.
The 40,000 artillery rounds sent. Are they mostly HE rounds or are some smart rounds and rocket assisted too?
These 18 SP guns sent are designed to shoot and scoot with a high degree of speed and accuracy. They were designed for use in a fast moving environment in mind.
It may have been an artillery war since 2014, but I don't think what the Ukrainians have is in the same class of what the the US is sending in terms of digitization and integration to advanced fire control techniques.
Probably a reason why the Russians bitched so much about the latest shipments of arms. The last thing they want to see is Ukraine in possession of dozens or hundreds of modern US SP artillery.
These 18 SP guns will up the Ukrainians artillery game considerably. In layman’s terms it’s like going from a DOS PC running on a 1980 PC to a Windows X running on modern hardware.
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.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
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.