db_zero

I agree tanks aren’t dead, nor IFVs. What will replace them that will provide infantry protection from artillery?
Aside from the mentioned Russian poor coordination, and combined arms, it’s also been mentioned that nobody really knows who in charge? It’s like 3 separate armies on 3 separate fronts doing their own thing and neither is coordinating with the Air Force which itself is off doing its own thing.
The switchblade drone has a range of 6 miles. The Javelins range is 3 miles. The small Switchblade has a 40mm grenade charge. Who wins that duel? 
 
The Merkava was and may still have a mortar on it. No reason why you couldn’t mount a Switchblade or 2 on a tank or IFV to hunt down ATGM operators.
Another huge weakness that I haven’t heard much regarding the Russians is piss poor reconnaissance of the battlefield something the US and Western armies excel at. 
 
Many of the ATGM and tank hunting infantry operating at will with little or no interference from Russian forces would face a much different opposition from well trained forces that conduct proper reconnaissance and use indirect fire, snipers and other means to suppress and kill tank hunting infantry.
It only takes killing some before word gets around and effectness drops.
Unlike the Russians the US/Western armies have good secure comms, JTACs, FACs (another aspect that seems to be absent in the Russian military) and ability to call down quick and effective fire from things like mortars, Paladins, MLRS, attack helicopters, drones and aircraft, before even sending vehicles into ATGM kill zones.

I agree tanks aren’t dead, nor IFVs. What will replace them that will provide infantry protection from artillery?
Aside from the mentioned Russian poor coordination, and combined arms, it’s also been mentioned that nobody really knows who in charge? It’s like 3 separate armies on 3 separate fronts doing their own thing and neither is coordinating with the Air Force which itself is off doing its own thing.
The switchblade drone has a range of 6 miles. The Javelins range is 3 miles. The small Switchblade has a 40mm grenade charge. Who wins that duel? 
 
The Merkava was and may still have a mortar on it. No reason why you couldn’t mount a Switchblade or 2 on a tank or IFV to hunt down ATGM operators.
Another huge weakness that I haven’t heard much regarding the Russians is piss poor reconnaissance of the battlefield something the US and Western armies excel at. 
 
Many of the ATGM and tank hunting infantry operating at will with little or no interference from Russian forces would face a much different opposition from well trained forces that conduct proper reconnaissance and use indirect fire, snipers and other means to suppress and kill tank hunting infantry.
It only takes killing some before word gets around and effectness drops.
Unlike the Russians the US/Western armies have good secure comms, JTACs, FACs (another aspect that seems to be absent in the Russian military) and ability to call down quick and effective fire from things like mortars, Paladins, MLRS, attack helicopters, drones and aircraft, before even sending vehicles into ATGM kill zones.

I agree tanks aren’t dead, nor IFVs. What will replace them that will provide infantry protection from artillery?
Aside from the mentioned Russian poor coordination, and combined arms, it’s also been mentioned that nobody really knows who in charge? It’s like 3 separate armies on 3 separate fronts doing their own thing and neither is coordinating with the Air Force which itself is off doing its own thing.
The switchblade drone has a range of 6 miles. The Javelins range is 3 miles. The small Switchblade has a 40mm grenade charge. Who wins that duel? 
 
The Merkava was and may still have a mortar on it. No reason why you couldn’t mount a Switchblade or 2 on a tank or IFV to hunt down ATGM operators.
Another huge weakness that I haven’t heard much regarding the Russians is piss poor reconnaissance of the battlefield something the US and Western armies excel at. 
 
Many of the ATGM and tank hunting infantry operating at will with little or no interference from Russian forces would face a much different opposition from well trained forces that conduct proper reconnaissance and use indirect fire, snipers and other means to suppress and kill tank hunting infantry.
It only takes killing some before word gets around and effectness drops.
Unlike the Russians the US/Western armies have good secure comms, JTACs, FACs (another aspect that seems to be absent in the Russian military) and ability to call down quick and effective fire from things like mortars, Paladins, MLRS, attack helicopters, drones and aircraft, before even sending vehicles into ATGM kill zones.

If we don’t blow ourselves up soon then the future is going to usher in some wild advances, quantum computation is one. AI is another and crazy stuff like Elon Musks experiment with implanting micro chips onto human brains.
Science fiction becoming science fact…I’m old enough to to remember watching Star Trek and saying those communicators are cool. We now have them- it called the smart phone.
When I bought my first board war game I thought-it would be cool if this could be done on a computer…
On another note there seems to be a mad rush to monetize this war on social media. People who never had an interest in the military or war are now experts…
There was an earlier post about the experts and their predictions before the war and how they’ve been wrong and why do we listen to them…
IMO it’s about getting your name out there and name recognition. Doesn’t matter if you’re right or wrong. If you’re name is known you’ll get invitations to speak at events and monetize your expertise.
Also the defense companies and probably their stocks are going to be quite profitable. Countries are going to spend more on defense and the supply of weapons will need to be replenished.
Also fertilizers will become more expensive and scarce and the wheat shortage not only means more expensive food but starvation in many parts of the world potentially leading to more wars and unrest.
The US military may be very busy for the foreseeable future.

If we don’t blow ourselves up soon then the future is going to usher in some wild advances, quantum computation is one. AI is another and crazy stuff like Elon Musks experiment with implanting micro chips onto human brains.
Science fiction becoming science fact…I’m old enough to to remember watching Star Trek and saying those communicators are cool. We now have them- it called the smart phone.
When I bought my first board war game I thought-it would be cool if this could be done on a computer…
On another note there seems to be a mad rush to monetize this war on social media. People who never had an interest in the military or war are now experts…
There was an earlier post about the experts and their predictions before the war and how they’ve been wrong and why do we listen to them…
IMO it’s about getting your name out there and name recognition. Doesn’t matter if you’re right or wrong. If you’re name is known you’ll get invitations to speak at events and monetize your expertise.
Also the defense companies and probably their stocks are going to be quite profitable. Countries are going to spend more on defense and the supply of weapons will need to be replenished.
Also fertilizers will become more expensive and scarce and the wheat shortage not only means more expensive food but starvation in many parts of the world potentially leading to more wars and unrest.
The US military may be very busy for the foreseeable future.

Interesting analysis of Russian logistics, trucks and tires from someone who knows a thing or 2.
Interesting take on corruption, use of wood in Russian trucks and why Russians are moving slowly.
 

Does this benefit Russia by allowing the army to reset, refit and re-supply? I've seen reports that Russia has already begun practicing large scale maneuvers, presumably in response to lessons learned. 
 
A respite from fighting may give Russia time to get their sh** together like encrypting communications and changes to procedures.
If they do have foreign fighters coming in it would give time to organize, equip and brief them on what to expect and lessons learned.
A cease fire that is then followed by a resumption of fighting gives the precious commodity of time.
While its easy to beat up on the performance of the Russian army, it has served them well in Syria and other places. Its only when they came up against a near peer enemy that was amply and quickly supplied with sophisticated weapons from the west that we've seen weaknesses greatly amplified and the results we're seeing.
If the West didn't respond the way it did you might be able to make a case that even with the glaring weaknesses we might be looking at a much different picture that is much grimmer for Ukraine.

Unreal, but given what we’ve learned about the over centralized nature of the Russian military, lack of secure communications, GPS, NVG and other equipment the West takes for granted, the Russians may be bunching up to maintain command and control…they have no choice and can’t adapt quickly.

I’ve seen the pro Russian views posted by Chinese netizens as well as in person interviews where different views expressed. Even in the pro Ukrainian view, opinions of the Wests expansionism is expressed, but support for Russia invading was disapproved and it was largely seen as between Russia and Ukraine.
What I did find interesting was an online post/video by a very angry Chinese citizen in Ukraine who told “keyboard warriors” in China to just STFU. It was getting back to Ukrainians and was making life very difficult. In fact he was stopped and said he had to tell Ukrainians he was Japanese. For a Chinese citizen to claim to be Japanese that’s pretty embarrassing.
I have no doubt there is support for Russia in China and I’ve seen both pro and against. Where it actually stands overall is is debatable, but even here in the US we have media, internet celebrities and some prominent figures with large following supporting Russia and Putin and they have loud voices. 
What really matters is what Xi and the party think and do and for now that appears on the side of caution.

Many of the commentators writing articles in major media outlets are the same ones who were cheer leading the US into invading Iraq in 2003 so I take what they say with caution. They are the same crowd who advocated for aggressive US expansion after the fall of the Soviet Union. Long discredited by the results of their push to spread democracy at the barrel of a gun, they now using this opportunity to push for aggressive US posturing. They have an agenda they are once again trying to push. 
Caution by the US is warranted. In 1951 after initial North Korean invasion, the US pulled off the Inchon landing and the US euphoric at the turn of events and got aggressive moving North. Then China stepped in.
Right now China is embarrassed at Russia's performance and indicating they would prefer a negotiated settlement and restraint. They have also indicated they want to avoid being sanctioned. Watching the reaction of average Chinese citizens on the street, most indicate they don't approve of the invasion and side with the Ukrainians, but also of note is if Russia was attacked then China should help Russia.
We're in the Cold War 2.0 and one of the features on the Cold War was proxy wars. No matter how this ends we're probably in for a long period of more proxy wars...

Many of the commentators writing articles in major media outlets are the same ones who were cheer leading the US into invading Iraq in 2003 so I take what they say with caution. They are the same crowd who advocated for aggressive US expansion after the fall of the Soviet Union. Long discredited by the results of their push to spread democracy at the barrel of a gun, they now using this opportunity to push for aggressive US posturing. They have an agenda they are once again trying to push. 
Caution by the US is warranted. In 1951 after initial North Korean invasion, the US pulled off the Inchon landing and the US euphoric at the turn of events and got aggressive moving North. Then China stepped in.
Right now China is embarrassed at Russia's performance and indicating they would prefer a negotiated settlement and restraint. They have also indicated they want to avoid being sanctioned. Watching the reaction of average Chinese citizens on the street, most indicate they don't approve of the invasion and side with the Ukrainians, but also of note is if Russia was attacked then China should help Russia.
We're in the Cold War 2.0 and one of the features on the Cold War was proxy wars. No matter how this ends we're probably in for a long period of more proxy wars...

Many of the commentators writing articles in major media outlets are the same ones who were cheer leading the US into invading Iraq in 2003 so I take what they say with caution. They are the same crowd who advocated for aggressive US expansion after the fall of the Soviet Union. Long discredited by the results of their push to spread democracy at the barrel of a gun, they now using this opportunity to push for aggressive US posturing. They have an agenda they are once again trying to push. 
Caution by the US is warranted. In 1951 after initial North Korean invasion, the US pulled off the Inchon landing and the US euphoric at the turn of events and got aggressive moving North. Then China stepped in.
Right now China is embarrassed at Russia's performance and indicating they would prefer a negotiated settlement and restraint. They have also indicated they want to avoid being sanctioned. Watching the reaction of average Chinese citizens on the street, most indicate they don't approve of the invasion and side with the Ukrainians, but also of note is if Russia was attacked then China should help Russia.
We're in the Cold War 2.0 and one of the features on the Cold War was proxy wars. No matter how this ends we're probably in for a long period of more proxy wars...

Many of the commentators writing articles in major media outlets are the same ones who were cheer leading the US into invading Iraq in 2003 so I take what they say with caution. They are the same crowd who advocated for aggressive US expansion after the fall of the Soviet Union. Long discredited by the results of their push to spread democracy at the barrel of a gun, they now using this opportunity to push for aggressive US posturing. They have an agenda they are once again trying to push. 
Caution by the US is warranted. In 1951 after initial North Korean invasion, the US pulled off the Inchon landing and the US euphoric at the turn of events and got aggressive moving North. Then China stepped in.
Right now China is embarrassed at Russia's performance and indicating they would prefer a negotiated settlement and restraint. They have also indicated they want to avoid being sanctioned. Watching the reaction of average Chinese citizens on the street, most indicate they don't approve of the invasion and side with the Ukrainians, but also of note is if Russia was attacked then China should help Russia.
We're in the Cold War 2.0 and one of the features on the Cold War was proxy wars. No matter how this ends we're probably in for a long period of more proxy wars...

The cost to rebuild what the Russians destroyed is going to be immense. I doubt Russia will agree to it, but taking some of the assets frozen to rebuild what they destroyed would be in order.

The cost to rebuild what the Russians destroyed is going to be immense. I doubt Russia will agree to it, but taking some of the assets frozen to rebuild what they destroyed would be in order.

We may be approaching an inflection point where the main objectives are in play.
IMO the Russians are probably going to go the siege route. The gritty and costly nature of urban combat will be too risky. Putin has already authorized the payment of huge sums of rubles for families of soldiers killed or wounded and even tyrants have limits placed on the number of young men they can send to the meat grinder.
I would guess If the decision is made to assault urban centers it will be after a long siege and those foreign fighters from Syria and other places, however many their true number is, will be sent in first to wear down defenders and make the defenders use ammo and other supplies before Russian forces are used...
I was surprised when it was mentioned the US Army doesn't have any guide to urban warfare. That may have changed. A while back though I did see a write up about how the Pentagon was allocating money to train in subterranean warfare so that may be changing.
For those interested in the nuts and bolts of what may face the Russians should they decide to take urban areas by direct assault here are some interesting links.
https://mwi.usma.edu/the-eight-rules-of-urban-warfare-and-why-we-must-work-to-change-them/
https://mwi.usma.edu/urban-warfare-project/
https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/MCWP 3-35.3.pdf
https://www.army.mod.uk/umbraco/Surface/Download/Get/11772
https://www.military.com/daily-news/opinions/2022/03/08/russia-doesnt-train-troops-urban-warfare-its-about-learn-consequences-ukraine.html
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/urban-warfare-ukraine-russia
A couple of good books on the subject:
Concrete Hell: Urban Warfare From Stalingrad to Iraq
Blood and Concrete: 21st Century Conflict in Urban Centers and Megacities
I've yet to find a good sim that models urban warfare in great detail. Its probably a very difficult thing to do anyway.
 

Not too long ago people were lamenting the billions spent in Afghanistan trying to build a modern army in the image of the west and what a spectacular failure it was.
Now we're seeing another army built in the image of the west and its a spectacular success.
Both instances are going to be the subject of a lot of studies in the future.
 

Not too long ago people were lamenting the billions spent in Afghanistan trying to build a modern army in the image of the west and what a spectacular failure it was.
Now we're seeing another army built in the image of the west and its a spectacular success.
Both instances are going to be the subject of a lot of studies in the future.
 

Just saw Kinophiles post so I'll delete.

My guess is if any sort of chemical attack in done. US/NATO will protest loudly and perhaps launch a few select cruise missile strikes against Russian targets in the Ukraine.
A no-fly zone would probably be highly unlikely but not completely out of the question, but would require a significant time to get necessary forces in place. It would also likely require going after targets in Belarus and Russia.
I wouldn't be surprised in China steps in and puts pressure on Russia. A general US/NATO-Russian conflict doesn't fit into their plans for domination. I believe Chinas game is the Sun Tzu dictum that the best general wins without fighting.
Speaking of China I'm even less convinced that before they can take Taiwan. Taking Taiwan would be a big ask for even the US, let alone China who has no experience in conducting an coordinated air-sea land amphibious operation.
If what we’re seeing now in the Ukraine is any indication, conducting a coordinated large scale military operation with a high chance of success against a competent opponent that is adequately supplied and willing to fight is only a luxury the west can afford.
It requires a professional force that can and is willing to spend lavishly on things like the NTC, Red Flag, Maple Flag and the numerous other training venues that will hone a force to the necessary level of competence and weed out those who are not fit. This costs money-lots of money.
I read that one of main issues for Russia and the modern Armada tank was the cost. The Russian economy couldn't afford to build them in sufficient numbers.
Then there are the structural issues in Russia and arguably Chinese society than hinder their ability to conduct a modern combined operation on a large scale.
Of course this is all subject to change, but until we get proof of significant changes being made I don't see Taiwan coming under the Chinese flag anytime soon.
Speaking of change I suspect there may be changes to armored forces and doctrine. The prospect of going against a force amply armed with the likes of a Javelin, NLAW and Stingers in large numbers is going to generate a lot of study, thought and push for innovation to counter the new reality.
DARPA and the DoD is likely busy sending out RFPs to defense contractors for possible solutions.
I've seen suggestions that tanks will probably un-manned in the future. I think lasers that shoot down incoming missiles is a possibility.
Drones is also another possible solution. A drone I bought years ago has the ability to lock onto a person or object and follow it. It wouldn't take much to program a drone to lock onto a person carrying a portable missile or the launch signature and then hunt them down.
As I mentioned before I suspect a lot of the shooters have been getting away and surviving to hunt again.
They post a few video clips and before long everyone wants to get in on the action.
If shooters start getting eliminated the equation will change. The Israelis after suffering heavy losses to infantry equipped with ATGMs and RPGs in 73, started mounting lots of machine guns and started spraying in the direction fire was coming from. Even if they didn't eliminate the shooter distracting them was just as effective. They re-learned the value of combined arms and infantry and artillery was no longer neglected.
Last thing of note-modern urban combat. Years ago, back in the days of NATO vs the Warsaw Pact I bought a board game-Cityfight. Never found anyone to play though, but the write up that came with it was interesting.
Over the years many have suggested that combat in urban centers was going to be the trend of the future. The demographics was shifting to urban areas and that's where the centers of power and wealth are concentrated. Being exposed in the open in the day and age of precision weapons was highly risky, but in an urban environment some of the advantages of precision weapons can be negated.
One of the mayors has promised to turn their city into another Stalingrad. Odessa is a fortified city. Kyiv has become a fortified city. I've heard estimates from experts that Kyiv could hold out up to a month, while other say longer. I've even hard one estimate of 9 months.
I'm hoping it doesn't come down to a brutal city fight and some sort of end of the fighting can be found, but it seems like both sides have dug their heels in and it’s a fight to the bitter end and regardless of the outcome, both sides will lose in some way or another.
and just like every other war in history its going to be the non-combatants who will bear the brunt of the suffering.
   
 

My guess is if any sort of chemical attack in done. US/NATO will protest loudly and perhaps launch a few select cruise missile strikes against Russian targets in the Ukraine.
A no-fly zone would probably be highly unlikely but not completely out of the question, but would require a significant time to get necessary forces in place. It would also likely require going after targets in Belarus and Russia.
I wouldn't be surprised in China steps in and puts pressure on Russia. A general US/NATO-Russian conflict doesn't fit into their plans for domination. I believe Chinas game is the Sun Tzu dictum that the best general wins without fighting.
Speaking of China I'm even less convinced that before they can take Taiwan. Taking Taiwan would be a big ask for even the US, let alone China who has no experience in conducting an coordinated air-sea land amphibious operation.
If what we’re seeing now in the Ukraine is any indication, conducting a coordinated large scale military operation with a high chance of success against a competent opponent that is adequately supplied and willing to fight is only a luxury the west can afford.
It requires a professional force that can and is willing to spend lavishly on things like the NTC, Red Flag, Maple Flag and the numerous other training venues that will hone a force to the necessary level of competence and weed out those who are not fit. This costs money-lots of money.
I read that one of main issues for Russia and the modern Armada tank was the cost. The Russian economy couldn't afford to build them in sufficient numbers.
Then there are the structural issues in Russia and arguably Chinese society than hinder their ability to conduct a modern combined operation on a large scale.
Of course this is all subject to change, but until we get proof of significant changes being made I don't see Taiwan coming under the Chinese flag anytime soon.
Speaking of change I suspect there may be changes to armored forces and doctrine. The prospect of going against a force amply armed with the likes of a Javelin, NLAW and Stingers in large numbers is going to generate a lot of study, thought and push for innovation to counter the new reality.
DARPA and the DoD is likely busy sending out RFPs to defense contractors for possible solutions.
I've seen suggestions that tanks will probably un-manned in the future. I think lasers that shoot down incoming missiles is a possibility.
Drones is also another possible solution. A drone I bought years ago has the ability to lock onto a person or object and follow it. It wouldn't take much to program a drone to lock onto a person carrying a portable missile or the launch signature and then hunt them down.
As I mentioned before I suspect a lot of the shooters have been getting away and surviving to hunt again.
They post a few video clips and before long everyone wants to get in on the action.
If shooters start getting eliminated the equation will change. The Israelis after suffering heavy losses to infantry equipped with ATGMs and RPGs in 73, started mounting lots of machine guns and started spraying in the direction fire was coming from. Even if they didn't eliminate the shooter distracting them was just as effective. They re-learned the value of combined arms and infantry and artillery was no longer neglected.
Last thing of note-modern urban combat. Years ago, back in the days of NATO vs the Warsaw Pact I bought a board game-Cityfight. Never found anyone to play though, but the write up that came with it was interesting.
Over the years many have suggested that combat in urban centers was going to be the trend of the future. The demographics was shifting to urban areas and that's where the centers of power and wealth are concentrated. Being exposed in the open in the day and age of precision weapons was highly risky, but in an urban environment some of the advantages of precision weapons can be negated.
One of the mayors has promised to turn their city into another Stalingrad. Odessa is a fortified city. Kyiv has become a fortified city. I've heard estimates from experts that Kyiv could hold out up to a month, while other say longer. I've even hard one estimate of 9 months.
I'm hoping it doesn't come down to a brutal city fight and some sort of end of the fighting can be found, but it seems like both sides have dug their heels in and it’s a fight to the bitter end and regardless of the outcome, both sides will lose in some way or another.
and just like every other war in history its going to be the non-combatants who will bear the brunt of the suffering.
   
 

The best SEAD against man portable systems may just be a good rapid ground offensive backed up by effective reconnaissance and artillery or sniper teams to kill and suppress the shooters.
I suspect most of the shooters of these anti tank and anti air systems are killing Russians and surviving due to the lack of tactical finesse and motivation of the Russian forces and poor operational planning and execution.
The Israelis lost a lot of aircraft in the 73 war. Once they got stand-off weapons and ECM pods from the US it helped but the real success was when they took the offensive and started destroying SAM sites with direct assaults or artillery fire.
 

Like many I’m a Cold War kid. Studied the Soviet Union and NATO vs Warsaw Pact quite a bit back in the day.
I think todays world is far more dangerous. During Cold War it was basically a bi-polar world. Now it’s multipolar. 
You have more countries with nukes and don’t be surprised if more start seeking them as a way to insure their national sovereignty.
You have a more connected world, social media, economies more interconnected and wealth distribution heavily tilted towards the top. Nations that were once creditor nations are deep in debt.
Some even believe we may see an end of democracy in America as we knew it in a couple of election cycles. The demographics of the US is rapidly changing and the stress cracks are showing.
China which was not a economic superpower during the Cold War now is and has built up its military and flexing its muscles.
This whole Ukraine situation is a lot like the 1973 Yom-Kippur period. You had everyone questioning the role of the main battle tank after the Israelis suffered heavily from ATGMs (studied this a lot and is a whole separate and interesting topic).
President Nixon threatened nuclear war by putting US nuclear forces on high alert as US and the Soviet Union were on a collision course over support of their respective client states.
You also had a sever oil shock and years of inflation and stagflation-something I foresee for the West in the coming years

A no fly zone over Ukraine is not just about the risk of NATO shooting down Russian aircraft.
The Russians have sophisticated SAMs like the S300 and S400 that would have to be suppressed. These sites are surrounded by mobile and static anti aircraft positions that would also need to be suppressed. 
 
The long range of the S300/400 and the overlapping nature of a layered air defense network would mean NATO would also have to suppress positions in Belarus and Russia itself.
We’re talking a major escalation. That’s why it’s completely off the table.

 

Already rehearsing it mate - sneak preview image ...