db_zero

The events in Ukraine are going to add some more fuel to the fire regarding the highly controversial reorganization of the US Marine Corps. The current commandant has eliminated all tanks, reduced artillery, helicopters and fixed wing assets to focus on guided missiles, drones, long range anti-ship missiles batteries and long-range unmanned surface vessels that has sensors and weapons that allow for pinpoint bombardment. They are also buying unmanned boats loaded with Kamikaze drones.
The reason for the re-org is the likely adversary China is a Pacific oriented theater that involves vast distances and the need for light highly deployable forces. Many of the potential hot spots are small atolls and shoals. Tanks are too cumbersome and heavy to land on these atolls and the risk of losing them to handheld anti-tank weapons is too great is the argument.
Artillery is also limited by the fact many of the tiny islands are so small they can't be used from a safe distance away from enemy fire and may not be able to use indirect fire at close range. While not totally useless its argued that tanks and artillery "are of less value than the things we need the most" and with a limited budget choices have to be made.
   
This has drawn the ire of just about every past commandant and they have been engaging in a PR campaign to slow or stop the re-org and are now lobbying congress. The argument here is the force structure is too tailored for a potential fight with China and would be ineffective elsewhere. There have been arguments that eliminating tanks makes the new force structure vulnerable in a fight with a armored heavy opponent.
The events in Ukraine where light infantry armed with guided missiles are decimating tanks and IFV's, pretty much invalidates the infantry is vulnerable to armored formations even when taking into account the Russians lack of finesse.
The argument that the new force structure would not be useful in a theater like Europe is also looking sketchy. A force structure like the new Marine Corps one would be highly effective in the southern coastal region of Ukraine. Anti-ship missile batteries would make any sort of Russian amphibious invasion or ship resupply of land forces a very risky proposition. Long range unmanned surface vessels with precision guns and guided missiles and drones would also be very effective.
Norway another area the marines currently train in would be another region where the new force structure would be very effective as would Sweden and Finland if it ever came down to it.
I still believe tanks are highly effective when properly used, but they are expensive to acquire, expensive to maintain and they will definitely need APS and more APS systems need to be developed. All of this will require money, lots of it and they are not easily deployable as their weight is already approaching the limits of practicality and adding on more stuff to protect them will only add to the weight problem.
In the past few decades global populations have been trending away from rural areas into urban areas. Over 90% of global commerce moves on the sea, so it follows that urban areas located near the water is where the centers of government and economic power lie.
A light infantry centric force with precision weapons, drones, unmanned surface vessels and anti-ship missiles makes a lot of sense. He may be highly controversial but General Berger is beginning to look very visionary.
 

The events in Ukraine are going to add some more fuel to the fire regarding the highly controversial reorganization of the US Marine Corps. The current commandant has eliminated all tanks, reduced artillery, helicopters and fixed wing assets to focus on guided missiles, drones, long range anti-ship missiles batteries and long-range unmanned surface vessels that has sensors and weapons that allow for pinpoint bombardment. They are also buying unmanned boats loaded with Kamikaze drones.
The reason for the re-org is the likely adversary China is a Pacific oriented theater that involves vast distances and the need for light highly deployable forces. Many of the potential hot spots are small atolls and shoals. Tanks are too cumbersome and heavy to land on these atolls and the risk of losing them to handheld anti-tank weapons is too great is the argument.
Artillery is also limited by the fact many of the tiny islands are so small they can't be used from a safe distance away from enemy fire and may not be able to use indirect fire at close range. While not totally useless its argued that tanks and artillery "are of less value than the things we need the most" and with a limited budget choices have to be made.
   
This has drawn the ire of just about every past commandant and they have been engaging in a PR campaign to slow or stop the re-org and are now lobbying congress. The argument here is the force structure is too tailored for a potential fight with China and would be ineffective elsewhere. There have been arguments that eliminating tanks makes the new force structure vulnerable in a fight with a armored heavy opponent.
The events in Ukraine where light infantry armed with guided missiles are decimating tanks and IFV's, pretty much invalidates the infantry is vulnerable to armored formations even when taking into account the Russians lack of finesse.
The argument that the new force structure would not be useful in a theater like Europe is also looking sketchy. A force structure like the new Marine Corps one would be highly effective in the southern coastal region of Ukraine. Anti-ship missile batteries would make any sort of Russian amphibious invasion or ship resupply of land forces a very risky proposition. Long range unmanned surface vessels with precision guns and guided missiles and drones would also be very effective.
Norway another area the marines currently train in would be another region where the new force structure would be very effective as would Sweden and Finland if it ever came down to it.
I still believe tanks are highly effective when properly used, but they are expensive to acquire, expensive to maintain and they will definitely need APS and more APS systems need to be developed. All of this will require money, lots of it and they are not easily deployable as their weight is already approaching the limits of practicality and adding on more stuff to protect them will only add to the weight problem.
In the past few decades global populations have been trending away from rural areas into urban areas. Over 90% of global commerce moves on the sea, so it follows that urban areas located near the water is where the centers of government and economic power lie.
A light infantry centric force with precision weapons, drones, unmanned surface vessels and anti-ship missiles makes a lot of sense. He may be highly controversial but General Berger is beginning to look very visionary.
 

The events in Ukraine are going to add some more fuel to the fire regarding the highly controversial reorganization of the US Marine Corps. The current commandant has eliminated all tanks, reduced artillery, helicopters and fixed wing assets to focus on guided missiles, drones, long range anti-ship missiles batteries and long-range unmanned surface vessels that has sensors and weapons that allow for pinpoint bombardment. They are also buying unmanned boats loaded with Kamikaze drones.
The reason for the re-org is the likely adversary China is a Pacific oriented theater that involves vast distances and the need for light highly deployable forces. Many of the potential hot spots are small atolls and shoals. Tanks are too cumbersome and heavy to land on these atolls and the risk of losing them to handheld anti-tank weapons is too great is the argument.
Artillery is also limited by the fact many of the tiny islands are so small they can't be used from a safe distance away from enemy fire and may not be able to use indirect fire at close range. While not totally useless its argued that tanks and artillery "are of less value than the things we need the most" and with a limited budget choices have to be made.
   
This has drawn the ire of just about every past commandant and they have been engaging in a PR campaign to slow or stop the re-org and are now lobbying congress. The argument here is the force structure is too tailored for a potential fight with China and would be ineffective elsewhere. There have been arguments that eliminating tanks makes the new force structure vulnerable in a fight with a armored heavy opponent.
The events in Ukraine where light infantry armed with guided missiles are decimating tanks and IFV's, pretty much invalidates the infantry is vulnerable to armored formations even when taking into account the Russians lack of finesse.
The argument that the new force structure would not be useful in a theater like Europe is also looking sketchy. A force structure like the new Marine Corps one would be highly effective in the southern coastal region of Ukraine. Anti-ship missile batteries would make any sort of Russian amphibious invasion or ship resupply of land forces a very risky proposition. Long range unmanned surface vessels with precision guns and guided missiles and drones would also be very effective.
Norway another area the marines currently train in would be another region where the new force structure would be very effective as would Sweden and Finland if it ever came down to it.
I still believe tanks are highly effective when properly used, but they are expensive to acquire, expensive to maintain and they will definitely need APS and more APS systems need to be developed. All of this will require money, lots of it and they are not easily deployable as their weight is already approaching the limits of practicality and adding on more stuff to protect them will only add to the weight problem.
In the past few decades global populations have been trending away from rural areas into urban areas. Over 90% of global commerce moves on the sea, so it follows that urban areas located near the water is where the centers of government and economic power lie.
A light infantry centric force with precision weapons, drones, unmanned surface vessels and anti-ship missiles makes a lot of sense. He may be highly controversial but General Berger is beginning to look very visionary.
 

The events in Ukraine are going to add some more fuel to the fire regarding the highly controversial reorganization of the US Marine Corps. The current commandant has eliminated all tanks, reduced artillery, helicopters and fixed wing assets to focus on guided missiles, drones, long range anti-ship missiles batteries and long-range unmanned surface vessels that has sensors and weapons that allow for pinpoint bombardment. They are also buying unmanned boats loaded with Kamikaze drones.
The reason for the re-org is the likely adversary China is a Pacific oriented theater that involves vast distances and the need for light highly deployable forces. Many of the potential hot spots are small atolls and shoals. Tanks are too cumbersome and heavy to land on these atolls and the risk of losing them to handheld anti-tank weapons is too great is the argument.
Artillery is also limited by the fact many of the tiny islands are so small they can't be used from a safe distance away from enemy fire and may not be able to use indirect fire at close range. While not totally useless its argued that tanks and artillery "are of less value than the things we need the most" and with a limited budget choices have to be made.
   
This has drawn the ire of just about every past commandant and they have been engaging in a PR campaign to slow or stop the re-org and are now lobbying congress. The argument here is the force structure is too tailored for a potential fight with China and would be ineffective elsewhere. There have been arguments that eliminating tanks makes the new force structure vulnerable in a fight with a armored heavy opponent.
The events in Ukraine where light infantry armed with guided missiles are decimating tanks and IFV's, pretty much invalidates the infantry is vulnerable to armored formations even when taking into account the Russians lack of finesse.
The argument that the new force structure would not be useful in a theater like Europe is also looking sketchy. A force structure like the new Marine Corps one would be highly effective in the southern coastal region of Ukraine. Anti-ship missile batteries would make any sort of Russian amphibious invasion or ship resupply of land forces a very risky proposition. Long range unmanned surface vessels with precision guns and guided missiles and drones would also be very effective.
Norway another area the marines currently train in would be another region where the new force structure would be very effective as would Sweden and Finland if it ever came down to it.
I still believe tanks are highly effective when properly used, but they are expensive to acquire, expensive to maintain and they will definitely need APS and more APS systems need to be developed. All of this will require money, lots of it and they are not easily deployable as their weight is already approaching the limits of practicality and adding on more stuff to protect them will only add to the weight problem.
In the past few decades global populations have been trending away from rural areas into urban areas. Over 90% of global commerce moves on the sea, so it follows that urban areas located near the water is where the centers of government and economic power lie.
A light infantry centric force with precision weapons, drones, unmanned surface vessels and anti-ship missiles makes a lot of sense. He may be highly controversial but General Berger is beginning to look very visionary.
 

The events in Ukraine are going to add some more fuel to the fire regarding the highly controversial reorganization of the US Marine Corps. The current commandant has eliminated all tanks, reduced artillery, helicopters and fixed wing assets to focus on guided missiles, drones, long range anti-ship missiles batteries and long-range unmanned surface vessels that has sensors and weapons that allow for pinpoint bombardment. They are also buying unmanned boats loaded with Kamikaze drones.
The reason for the re-org is the likely adversary China is a Pacific oriented theater that involves vast distances and the need for light highly deployable forces. Many of the potential hot spots are small atolls and shoals. Tanks are too cumbersome and heavy to land on these atolls and the risk of losing them to handheld anti-tank weapons is too great is the argument.
Artillery is also limited by the fact many of the tiny islands are so small they can't be used from a safe distance away from enemy fire and may not be able to use indirect fire at close range. While not totally useless its argued that tanks and artillery "are of less value than the things we need the most" and with a limited budget choices have to be made.
   
This has drawn the ire of just about every past commandant and they have been engaging in a PR campaign to slow or stop the re-org and are now lobbying congress. The argument here is the force structure is too tailored for a potential fight with China and would be ineffective elsewhere. There have been arguments that eliminating tanks makes the new force structure vulnerable in a fight with a armored heavy opponent.
The events in Ukraine where light infantry armed with guided missiles are decimating tanks and IFV's, pretty much invalidates the infantry is vulnerable to armored formations even when taking into account the Russians lack of finesse.
The argument that the new force structure would not be useful in a theater like Europe is also looking sketchy. A force structure like the new Marine Corps one would be highly effective in the southern coastal region of Ukraine. Anti-ship missile batteries would make any sort of Russian amphibious invasion or ship resupply of land forces a very risky proposition. Long range unmanned surface vessels with precision guns and guided missiles and drones would also be very effective.
Norway another area the marines currently train in would be another region where the new force structure would be very effective as would Sweden and Finland if it ever came down to it.
I still believe tanks are highly effective when properly used, but they are expensive to acquire, expensive to maintain and they will definitely need APS and more APS systems need to be developed. All of this will require money, lots of it and they are not easily deployable as their weight is already approaching the limits of practicality and adding on more stuff to protect them will only add to the weight problem.
In the past few decades global populations have been trending away from rural areas into urban areas. Over 90% of global commerce moves on the sea, so it follows that urban areas located near the water is where the centers of government and economic power lie.
A light infantry centric force with precision weapons, drones, unmanned surface vessels and anti-ship missiles makes a lot of sense. He may be highly controversial but General Berger is beginning to look very visionary.
 

The events in Ukraine are going to add some more fuel to the fire regarding the highly controversial reorganization of the US Marine Corps. The current commandant has eliminated all tanks, reduced artillery, helicopters and fixed wing assets to focus on guided missiles, drones, long range anti-ship missiles batteries and long-range unmanned surface vessels that has sensors and weapons that allow for pinpoint bombardment. They are also buying unmanned boats loaded with Kamikaze drones.
The reason for the re-org is the likely adversary China is a Pacific oriented theater that involves vast distances and the need for light highly deployable forces. Many of the potential hot spots are small atolls and shoals. Tanks are too cumbersome and heavy to land on these atolls and the risk of losing them to handheld anti-tank weapons is too great is the argument.
Artillery is also limited by the fact many of the tiny islands are so small they can't be used from a safe distance away from enemy fire and may not be able to use indirect fire at close range. While not totally useless its argued that tanks and artillery "are of less value than the things we need the most" and with a limited budget choices have to be made.
   
This has drawn the ire of just about every past commandant and they have been engaging in a PR campaign to slow or stop the re-org and are now lobbying congress. The argument here is the force structure is too tailored for a potential fight with China and would be ineffective elsewhere. There have been arguments that eliminating tanks makes the new force structure vulnerable in a fight with a armored heavy opponent.
The events in Ukraine where light infantry armed with guided missiles are decimating tanks and IFV's, pretty much invalidates the infantry is vulnerable to armored formations even when taking into account the Russians lack of finesse.
The argument that the new force structure would not be useful in a theater like Europe is also looking sketchy. A force structure like the new Marine Corps one would be highly effective in the southern coastal region of Ukraine. Anti-ship missile batteries would make any sort of Russian amphibious invasion or ship resupply of land forces a very risky proposition. Long range unmanned surface vessels with precision guns and guided missiles and drones would also be very effective.
Norway another area the marines currently train in would be another region where the new force structure would be very effective as would Sweden and Finland if it ever came down to it.
I still believe tanks are highly effective when properly used, but they are expensive to acquire, expensive to maintain and they will definitely need APS and more APS systems need to be developed. All of this will require money, lots of it and they are not easily deployable as their weight is already approaching the limits of practicality and adding on more stuff to protect them will only add to the weight problem.
In the past few decades global populations have been trending away from rural areas into urban areas. Over 90% of global commerce moves on the sea, so it follows that urban areas located near the water is where the centers of government and economic power lie.
A light infantry centric force with precision weapons, drones, unmanned surface vessels and anti-ship missiles makes a lot of sense. He may be highly controversial but General Berger is beginning to look very visionary.
 

The events in Ukraine are going to add some more fuel to the fire regarding the highly controversial reorganization of the US Marine Corps. The current commandant has eliminated all tanks, reduced artillery, helicopters and fixed wing assets to focus on guided missiles, drones, long range anti-ship missiles batteries and long-range unmanned surface vessels that has sensors and weapons that allow for pinpoint bombardment. They are also buying unmanned boats loaded with Kamikaze drones.
The reason for the re-org is the likely adversary China is a Pacific oriented theater that involves vast distances and the need for light highly deployable forces. Many of the potential hot spots are small atolls and shoals. Tanks are too cumbersome and heavy to land on these atolls and the risk of losing them to handheld anti-tank weapons is too great is the argument.
Artillery is also limited by the fact many of the tiny islands are so small they can't be used from a safe distance away from enemy fire and may not be able to use indirect fire at close range. While not totally useless its argued that tanks and artillery "are of less value than the things we need the most" and with a limited budget choices have to be made.
   
This has drawn the ire of just about every past commandant and they have been engaging in a PR campaign to slow or stop the re-org and are now lobbying congress. The argument here is the force structure is too tailored for a potential fight with China and would be ineffective elsewhere. There have been arguments that eliminating tanks makes the new force structure vulnerable in a fight with a armored heavy opponent.
The events in Ukraine where light infantry armed with guided missiles are decimating tanks and IFV's, pretty much invalidates the infantry is vulnerable to armored formations even when taking into account the Russians lack of finesse.
The argument that the new force structure would not be useful in a theater like Europe is also looking sketchy. A force structure like the new Marine Corps one would be highly effective in the southern coastal region of Ukraine. Anti-ship missile batteries would make any sort of Russian amphibious invasion or ship resupply of land forces a very risky proposition. Long range unmanned surface vessels with precision guns and guided missiles and drones would also be very effective.
Norway another area the marines currently train in would be another region where the new force structure would be very effective as would Sweden and Finland if it ever came down to it.
I still believe tanks are highly effective when properly used, but they are expensive to acquire, expensive to maintain and they will definitely need APS and more APS systems need to be developed. All of this will require money, lots of it and they are not easily deployable as their weight is already approaching the limits of practicality and adding on more stuff to protect them will only add to the weight problem.
In the past few decades global populations have been trending away from rural areas into urban areas. Over 90% of global commerce moves on the sea, so it follows that urban areas located near the water is where the centers of government and economic power lie.
A light infantry centric force with precision weapons, drones, unmanned surface vessels and anti-ship missiles makes a lot of sense. He may be highly controversial but General Berger is beginning to look very visionary.
 

Looks like "Kalibri", Caliber ?

Just the name of the tank

No, that should mean "colibri", but it is written with grammar mistake. Typical situation in Russia - level of education is falling lower anf lower. They swarm here "to protect Russian language from oppresion", but they themselves don't know how to write correctly in it.   

Much of the focus is on the tactical stuff.
When the US, NATO or Western powers conduct large military operation there is a Theater Commander or some sort of equivalent who is in direct charge. Many commented including those with past military experience and had contacts that they could not name the Russian Theater Commander.
What they saw was 3 separate areas of operations doing their own thing and competing for scarce supplies and resources.  Neither were coordinating with the Air Force which seemed to be off doing it own thing.
A Western army with a Theater commander would be coordinating all 3 armies as well as coordinating with air operations. He would also be coordinating supplies as well as higher level assets like artillery, EW assets, ADA, strategic recon-both air and ground and naval forces that may be taking place as well as space and other assets.
The goal would be to reinforce success and insure synchronization and synergy between land, air and sea as well as between all fronts.
The Russians are doing none of the above, fighting as a rabble. So really can any real lessons regarding whether the tank is dead, the drone is omnipotent and the future lies with UVGs that aren't even in service be drawn?

Reading initial reports about the Ukrainian counterattacks and speculation that 10,000 Russian troops may be cut off around Kyiv.
Another report suggest just a major retreat.
Some people on social media are speculating there may be a mass surrender in a week.
If this does turn out to be accurate we may be looking at a mini Stalingrad. It would be a huge blow to Russia.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-has-launched-counteroffensives-reportedly-surrounding-10000-russian-troops/ar-AAVsUwC
 

Just flipped on the news and it’s reported the Ukrainians now have more tanks and IFVs then the Russians do in Ukraine as they have captured and are re-using abandoned Russian tanks.
 

Just flipped on the news and it’s reported the Ukrainians now have more tanks and IFVs then the Russians do in Ukraine as they have captured and are re-using abandoned Russian tanks.
 

Much of the focus is on the tactical stuff.
When the US, NATO or Western powers conduct large military operation there is a Theater Commander or some sort of equivalent who is in direct charge. Many commented including those with past military experience and had contacts that they could not name the Russian Theater Commander.
What they saw was 3 separate areas of operations doing their own thing and competing for scarce supplies and resources.  Neither were coordinating with the Air Force which seemed to be off doing it own thing.
A Western army with a Theater commander would be coordinating all 3 armies as well as coordinating with air operations. He would also be coordinating supplies as well as higher level assets like artillery, EW assets, ADA, strategic recon-both air and ground and naval forces that may be taking place as well as space and other assets.
The goal would be to reinforce success and insure synchronization and synergy between land, air and sea as well as between all fronts.
The Russians are doing none of the above, fighting as a rabble. So really can any real lessons regarding whether the tank is dead, the drone is omnipotent and the future lies with UVGs that aren't even in service be drawn?

I don’t agree. Stalin appointed what amounted to Theater commanders. You just have to have the proper controls in place.
Ask yourself this. Had Russian ran the operation properly with a good and efficient command structure the results could very well be different, success would have come quickly and the discussion would likely be different.
People might very well be saying the Russians have a dangerous armored force and the West needs more tanks…

Just flipped on the news and it’s reported the Ukrainians now have more tanks and IFVs then the Russians do in Ukraine as they have captured and are re-using abandoned Russian tanks.
 

Invading Iran would not be smart period. Any President sending US ground forces to invade would need to get their head examined.

As the old saying goes “he who has the gold makes the rules”
The US has already made the Russian tank force obsolete.
it’s been put on notice for some time that if your Russian tank force comes in contact with a well trained and motivated western armed force expect catastrophic losses.

Drones are easy to shoot down and still rely on guidance that can be jammed. 
 
Tanks aren’t going anywhere. They will change and evolve, there will probably be a mix of manned and unmanned tanks. 
 
In a rapidly changing environment humans can still process act and adapt faster than any AI so that is going to be a limiting factor on any unmanned system and any sort of remote control is going to have vulnerabilities.

I’m not buying the infantry armed with missiles have become omnipotent when the Russian Army has demonstrated the complete inability to conduct reconnaissance or capabilities to suppress infantry. In most cases they are probably not attempting either. 
 
They have also demonstrated a remarkable tendency to stick to the roads and stay bunched up.
The lack of secure communications and coordination is also shocking and a huge factor in why they can’t suppress missile infantry and are suffering huge losses.
At a higher level ask yourself who is the overall theater commander? There is nobody which means higher level assets are not being properly used or coordinated.
You match a well trained army vs a predominantly missile armed infantry force and you’re not going to get the results we’re now seeing.
It’s a huge mistake to draw a few conclusions about weapon systems and effectiveness when there is a whole lot more going on and a bigger picture of incompetence going on.
This whole belief that missile carrying infantry is now omnipotent ignores one huge factor. The Ukrainians are not being killed or suppressed. Once that starts happening human instinct to survive takes over and people become more cautious.

Drones are easy to shoot down and still rely on guidance that can be jammed. 
 
Tanks aren’t going anywhere. They will change and evolve, there will probably be a mix of manned and unmanned tanks. 
 
In a rapidly changing environment humans can still process act and adapt faster than any AI so that is going to be a limiting factor on any unmanned system and any sort of remote control is going to have vulnerabilities.

I’m not buying the infantry armed with missiles have become omnipotent when the Russian Army has demonstrated the complete inability to conduct reconnaissance or capabilities to suppress infantry. In most cases they are probably not attempting either. 
 
They have also demonstrated a remarkable tendency to stick to the roads and stay bunched up.
The lack of secure communications and coordination is also shocking and a huge factor in why they can’t suppress missile infantry and are suffering huge losses.
At a higher level ask yourself who is the overall theater commander? There is nobody which means higher level assets are not being properly used or coordinated.
You match a well trained army vs a predominantly missile armed infantry force and you’re not going to get the results we’re now seeing.
It’s a huge mistake to draw a few conclusions about weapon systems and effectiveness when there is a whole lot more going on and a bigger picture of incompetence going on.
This whole belief that missile carrying infantry is now omnipotent ignores one huge factor. The Ukrainians are not being killed or suppressed. Once that starts happening human instinct to survive takes over and people become more cautious.

It does matter as just naming a country that you’re not realistically going to fight using the weapons in question make no sense.
We could just use another NATO country if one wanted to start picking random nations out of a hat…
anyway let’s drop it as it’s getting off track.

Invading Iran would not be smart period. Any President sending US ground forces to invade would need to get their head examined.

As the old saying goes “he who has the gold makes the rules”
The US has already made the Russian tank force obsolete.
it’s been put on notice for some time that if your Russian tank force comes in contact with a well trained and motivated western armed force expect catastrophic losses.

As the old saying goes “he who has the gold makes the rules”
The US has already made the Russian tank force obsolete.
it’s been put on notice for some time that if your Russian tank force comes in contact with a well trained and motivated western armed force expect catastrophic losses.