holoween

Ill make the case that the power of at weapons is overstated mostly due to bad tactics and a tech disparity.
We know since WW1 that tanks or rather generally AFVs are vulnerable in low numbers. And at the latest since WW2 we know that you have to protect tanks with infantry from close range at. It seems however that the russians have unlearned these lessons.
This experience report seems to suggest this and this video equally seems to confirm this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpx7TWc58PI And in general ive not seen any good infantry armour combined arms from the russian side.
The ukrainians seem to do this much better and id argue that this on its own massively contributes to the loss disparity between russian and ukrainian afvs.
 
There is also a massive disparity between most russian afvs and western afvs that is hard to overstate: thermals.
Take the video ive linked and imagine just replacing the bmp2 with any modern western ifv. Once the mobility kill happens (even NLAW isnt perfect) youd have 2 independently swung thermal imagers searching for them. And given they were in line of sight and repeatedly firing from the same position for 10min just 350m away even with 2nd gen thermal imagers they would have been spotted.
If we now pair this with proper AFV tactics so no continuous fighting from the same position, supporting infantry, a seconf IFV to support, and maybe some squad or platoon level spotting drones overhead this entire situation suddenly becomes practically impossible for the infantry. And if you add an active protection system they are screwed either way.
 
 
This has some quite significant caveats.
1. unless you have lock on after launch capability youre still limited to los engagements and that dramatically lowers the area a vehicle has to keep track of. It also means to engage the vehicle you have to be in los to the vehicle itself putting you at potential risk. That risk is quite low if youre 1000m away in complex terrain shooting at a single t72 but it becomes much higher if its a platoon of modern mbts. 8 high qualits thermal imagers scanning for you have a quite good chance spotting you even at distance.
2. And if you use lock after launch missiles you can keep yourself safe but still need something to tell you where the tank is. And especially if used at longer ranges its time of flight is significant enough that its better compared to organically called precision artillery.
A tank is definitely easier to find than an infantryman but both can be found and the ammount of drone footage of arty destroying infantry directed by drones is proof of that. A tank however is far more difficult to actually fix in place once spotted compared to infantry.
 
And this leads to The main reason why AFVs are unlikely to ever go away: As demonstrated in this war to gain grund you have to take it from the enemy and to hold it you have to defend it with infantry. No matter the firepower be it precision in cae of the ukrainians or mass in case of the russians can clear an objective. It has to be taken and cleared by infantry.
And once you have to take ground you have to be exposed and you will be detected and you will be shot at. And infantry is vulnerable to literally everything on a battlefield and it cant move at any significant speed on its own. So With drones everywhere the infantry is likely to be spotted and shot to pieces before they can even reach the jumpoff point for an attack or at the latest once the attack actually happens.
Try intercepting this with arty:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw8RDpS1uOE
 If AFVs were truely obsolete Ukraine wouldnt ask for hundreds of tanks and ifvs to enable them to attack.
 

Ill make the case that the power of at weapons is overstated mostly due to bad tactics and a tech disparity.
We know since WW1 that tanks or rather generally AFVs are vulnerable in low numbers. And at the latest since WW2 we know that you have to protect tanks with infantry from close range at. It seems however that the russians have unlearned these lessons.
This experience report seems to suggest this and this video equally seems to confirm this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpx7TWc58PI And in general ive not seen any good infantry armour combined arms from the russian side.
The ukrainians seem to do this much better and id argue that this on its own massively contributes to the loss disparity between russian and ukrainian afvs.
 
There is also a massive disparity between most russian afvs and western afvs that is hard to overstate: thermals.
Take the video ive linked and imagine just replacing the bmp2 with any modern western ifv. Once the mobility kill happens (even NLAW isnt perfect) youd have 2 independently swung thermal imagers searching for them. And given they were in line of sight and repeatedly firing from the same position for 10min just 350m away even with 2nd gen thermal imagers they would have been spotted.
If we now pair this with proper AFV tactics so no continuous fighting from the same position, supporting infantry, a seconf IFV to support, and maybe some squad or platoon level spotting drones overhead this entire situation suddenly becomes practically impossible for the infantry. And if you add an active protection system they are screwed either way.
 
 
This has some quite significant caveats.
1. unless you have lock on after launch capability youre still limited to los engagements and that dramatically lowers the area a vehicle has to keep track of. It also means to engage the vehicle you have to be in los to the vehicle itself putting you at potential risk. That risk is quite low if youre 1000m away in complex terrain shooting at a single t72 but it becomes much higher if its a platoon of modern mbts. 8 high qualits thermal imagers scanning for you have a quite good chance spotting you even at distance.
2. And if you use lock after launch missiles you can keep yourself safe but still need something to tell you where the tank is. And especially if used at longer ranges its time of flight is significant enough that its better compared to organically called precision artillery.
A tank is definitely easier to find than an infantryman but both can be found and the ammount of drone footage of arty destroying infantry directed by drones is proof of that. A tank however is far more difficult to actually fix in place once spotted compared to infantry.
 
And this leads to The main reason why AFVs are unlikely to ever go away: As demonstrated in this war to gain grund you have to take it from the enemy and to hold it you have to defend it with infantry. No matter the firepower be it precision in cae of the ukrainians or mass in case of the russians can clear an objective. It has to be taken and cleared by infantry.
And once you have to take ground you have to be exposed and you will be detected and you will be shot at. And infantry is vulnerable to literally everything on a battlefield and it cant move at any significant speed on its own. So With drones everywhere the infantry is likely to be spotted and shot to pieces before they can even reach the jumpoff point for an attack or at the latest once the attack actually happens.
Try intercepting this with arty:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw8RDpS1uOE
 If AFVs were truely obsolete Ukraine wouldnt ask for hundreds of tanks and ifvs to enable them to attack.
 

Ill make the case that the power of at weapons is overstated mostly due to bad tactics and a tech disparity.
We know since WW1 that tanks or rather generally AFVs are vulnerable in low numbers. And at the latest since WW2 we know that you have to protect tanks with infantry from close range at. It seems however that the russians have unlearned these lessons.
This experience report seems to suggest this and this video equally seems to confirm this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpx7TWc58PI And in general ive not seen any good infantry armour combined arms from the russian side.
The ukrainians seem to do this much better and id argue that this on its own massively contributes to the loss disparity between russian and ukrainian afvs.
 
There is also a massive disparity between most russian afvs and western afvs that is hard to overstate: thermals.
Take the video ive linked and imagine just replacing the bmp2 with any modern western ifv. Once the mobility kill happens (even NLAW isnt perfect) youd have 2 independently swung thermal imagers searching for them. And given they were in line of sight and repeatedly firing from the same position for 10min just 350m away even with 2nd gen thermal imagers they would have been spotted.
If we now pair this with proper AFV tactics so no continuous fighting from the same position, supporting infantry, a seconf IFV to support, and maybe some squad or platoon level spotting drones overhead this entire situation suddenly becomes practically impossible for the infantry. And if you add an active protection system they are screwed either way.
 
 
This has some quite significant caveats.
1. unless you have lock on after launch capability youre still limited to los engagements and that dramatically lowers the area a vehicle has to keep track of. It also means to engage the vehicle you have to be in los to the vehicle itself putting you at potential risk. That risk is quite low if youre 1000m away in complex terrain shooting at a single t72 but it becomes much higher if its a platoon of modern mbts. 8 high qualits thermal imagers scanning for you have a quite good chance spotting you even at distance.
2. And if you use lock after launch missiles you can keep yourself safe but still need something to tell you where the tank is. And especially if used at longer ranges its time of flight is significant enough that its better compared to organically called precision artillery.
A tank is definitely easier to find than an infantryman but both can be found and the ammount of drone footage of arty destroying infantry directed by drones is proof of that. A tank however is far more difficult to actually fix in place once spotted compared to infantry.
 
And this leads to The main reason why AFVs are unlikely to ever go away: As demonstrated in this war to gain grund you have to take it from the enemy and to hold it you have to defend it with infantry. No matter the firepower be it precision in cae of the ukrainians or mass in case of the russians can clear an objective. It has to be taken and cleared by infantry.
And once you have to take ground you have to be exposed and you will be detected and you will be shot at. And infantry is vulnerable to literally everything on a battlefield and it cant move at any significant speed on its own. So With drones everywhere the infantry is likely to be spotted and shot to pieces before they can even reach the jumpoff point for an attack or at the latest once the attack actually happens.
Try intercepting this with arty:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw8RDpS1uOE
 If AFVs were truely obsolete Ukraine wouldnt ask for hundreds of tanks and ifvs to enable them to attack.
 

So for the question of tanks being obsolete.
What is a tank supposed to do?
Why cant it do that currently?
Why does this not apply to other AFVs?
What do you replace it with?

I cant speak for the Abrams but id be surprised if its much different.
The issue the Poles had were more that they were sold for very cheap with the agreement that KMW gets to do all upgrades. The Poles want to do their own which KMW sais they have to certify with them which the Poles dont like hence the switch.
If they really didnt like them why would they ask for more during the Ringtausch programm?

Since all my hands on knoledge of the t72 comes from steel beasts i dont feel qualified to give a indepth comparison.
Lack of reverse speed is probably the t72s biggest failing. lack of thermals is equally significant. laser dot not being in line with the primary sight really limits long range engagement speed and moving target accuracy. Biggest quality is probably the HE-FRAG rounds. they make them far more effective vs infantry targets compared to 120mm HEAT. 120mm HE airburst will flip that but that isnt in widespread use.
Agreed
The issue with snorkeling is there are only limited places where its even viable. For germany they were mapped out during the cold war but ukraine? if not you need specialists that know how to scout a site and prepare it. Bridging equipment seems like a better way to go at least generally.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiler_(Panzer)
We use speciualized equipment for specialized jobs. The tank you posted isnt going to go at any speed during an attack so youre spending far more time in the open. If you know there is a minefield breaching it with a specialized vehicle is better.
Leo2 is actually equipped for indirect fire. Noone ever trains it but its in the manuals.

So for the question of tanks being obsolete.
What is a tank supposed to do?
Why cant it do that currently?
Why does this not apply to other AFVs?
What do you replace it with?

Since all my hands on knoledge of the t72 comes from steel beasts i dont feel qualified to give a indepth comparison.
Lack of reverse speed is probably the t72s biggest failing. lack of thermals is equally significant. laser dot not being in line with the primary sight really limits long range engagement speed and moving target accuracy. Biggest quality is probably the HE-FRAG rounds. they make them far more effective vs infantry targets compared to 120mm HEAT. 120mm HE airburst will flip that but that isnt in widespread use.
Agreed
The issue with snorkeling is there are only limited places where its even viable. For germany they were mapped out during the cold war but ukraine? if not you need specialists that know how to scout a site and prepare it. Bridging equipment seems like a better way to go at least generally.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiler_(Panzer)
We use speciualized equipment for specialized jobs. The tank you posted isnt going to go at any speed during an attack so youre spending far more time in the open. If you know there is a minefield breaching it with a specialized vehicle is better.
Leo2 is actually equipped for indirect fire. Noone ever trains it but its in the manuals.

I cannot get over how right this sentence is.  Bring them into NATO - arm the living daylights out of them.  Get them to teach us about corrosive warfare and unmanned systems.  But all of this is post-war or if this war goes on for 2-3 years, do it in parallel.
This, is deterrence.

Regarding the "death of the tank", I'm just listening to a Twitter room with general Jarosław Gromadziński, who used to be a commander of 18th Mechanized Division (one that is being rearmed with M1s), and now is vice-chief of Ukraine Defence Contact Group. You might assume that he knows a thing or two about tanks, and how these work in UA from sources other than accessible to us. And his points are:
- war in Ukraine proved that the tanks is anything but dead, in fact tanks are indispensible and form a core of any serious action
- the tactics of tank usage have changed and times of whole battalions rolling through an open field are definitely over, but there's no offensive operations without tanks
- regarding Polish army adaptation of K2, he favors the "light" for the future K2PL, sacrificing some (side) armour for mobility
- hard-kill APS is a must and non-negotiable going forward
The whole discussion was about something else and these points weren't argued for, but he treated them as axioms when answering other questions.
Edit: 
He made an interesting indiscretion - according to him, there's more than 600 NATO-caliber artillery pieces in Ukraine at the moment. That is way more that I thought, I was placing the number at ~400.

Neither exists as an upgrade to the leo2 in the german army thats done by specialized vehicles and crews.
Snorkeling is not something usually trained. Its got quite limited use cases and if you want to use it for an operation you have to peplan it in advance quite a bit so training the crews on it then is the way to go.
1 they arent easily damaged. Outside of enemy action a freshly trained crew isnt going to damage the tank much more often than a seasoned crew.
2 you dont. your readiness rate is simply going to be lower as you have to ship them back until you have managed to train up the maintenance crews.
If you want to create essentially a armoured brigade from scratch yes youre going to take well over a year if you want to get them to nato standards. However noone is doing that. All the training for ukrainian soldiers in western countries is training up seperate pieces.
Giving them equipment they are already used to is done with priority (ringtausch) but there is only so much kit around.
Getting ukrain 100leo2s is also incredibly unlikely give the generally low inventories. Realisitcally were looking at a western battlaion size (44 tanks) with 10-15 spare tanks to keep the battalion up to strength while the damaged ones are send to the west.
No that doesnt give ukraine a formation that can run over the russianss as the us was running over iraq but that still gives them a fairly powerfull unit.

Yea ill call bs on that.
At least on a Leo2 teaching a crew the essentials of using and maintaining the tank takes maybe a week.
And even if were talking full training were way below your mark. It takes 3 weeks to train a driver fully.
For gunner/loader it takes 6 weeks max. 
And for the tc getting proficient at their station shouldnt take more than a week with the overall training time just being determined by how much tactics they have to be tought.
Higher level maintenance obviously takes longer but that doesnt really matter much since you can simply do it like its currently done with western systems. ship them back and have proper repair shops outside ukraine.

Yea ill call bs on that.
At least on a Leo2 teaching a crew the essentials of using and maintaining the tank takes maybe a week.
And even if were talking full training were way below your mark. It takes 3 weeks to train a driver fully.
For gunner/loader it takes 6 weeks max. 
And for the tc getting proficient at their station shouldnt take more than a week with the overall training time just being determined by how much tactics they have to be tought.
Higher level maintenance obviously takes longer but that doesnt really matter much since you can simply do it like its currently done with western systems. ship them back and have proper repair shops outside ukraine.

Yea ill call bs on that.
At least on a Leo2 teaching a crew the essentials of using and maintaining the tank takes maybe a week.
And even if were talking full training were way below your mark. It takes 3 weeks to train a driver fully.
For gunner/loader it takes 6 weeks max. 
And for the tc getting proficient at their station shouldnt take more than a week with the overall training time just being determined by how much tactics they have to be tought.
Higher level maintenance obviously takes longer but that doesnt really matter much since you can simply do it like its currently done with western systems. ship them back and have proper repair shops outside ukraine.

I am a little reluctant to promote my tool here as expectations are already way too high for my taste and somehow my free time seems to never match up with what still needs to be coded but given that we are talking about a present day conflict this might be a really good use case for CMAutoEditor. At least in places where OpenStreetMap is not too sparsely populated.
 

As a german tanker weve had a query in our company about russian speaking soldiers we had to help train Ukrainians. If, when and how the one guy we have is going to be used remains to be seen.

Does everyone collectively keep forgetting that aps do exist but are currently not used in ukraine be either side?
Because they do fix the core survivability vs infantry issue tanks currently have.

Being german ive only ever read it in german only really ever taking english quotes for such conversations. My background is also in sociology and political science though ive since gone on to become a soldier.
I found his book(s) reasonably easy to read especially compared to some other sociology books and lets be clear that is where war studies belong.
I need to start this another way though i think
what is it you want to look at?
Because what clausewitz provides is a framework on how to think about war. He then uses it to make several observations and then removes himself from that discussion and looks at tactics and strategy.
His tactics and strategy are entirely outdated except for the very basics like concentration of force, logistics mattering etc.
The how to think about war part though id consider basically timeles and ass close to the truth of the matter as were going to get for quite some time.
War is the use of force by one group of people on another group to compell it to do its will
Serves as a usefull check for a policy maker
What do i want, what does my oponent want, how can i force him to comply with my whishes.
And depending on each sides will and ability looking through this lense may sometimes lead to the conclusion that war may be unable to achieve what you want.

Being german ive only ever read it in german only really ever taking english quotes for such conversations. My background is also in sociology and political science though ive since gone on to become a soldier.
I found his book(s) reasonably easy to read especially compared to some other sociology books and lets be clear that is where war studies belong.
I need to start this another way though i think
what is it you want to look at?
Because what clausewitz provides is a framework on how to think about war. He then uses it to make several observations and then removes himself from that discussion and looks at tactics and strategy.
His tactics and strategy are entirely outdated except for the very basics like concentration of force, logistics mattering etc.
The how to think about war part though id consider basically timeles and ass close to the truth of the matter as were going to get for quite some time.
War is the use of force by one group of people on another group to compell it to do its will
Serves as a usefull check for a policy maker
What do i want, what does my oponent want, how can i force him to comply with my whishes.
And depending on each sides will and ability looking through this lense may sometimes lead to the conclusion that war may be unable to achieve what you want.

Given their performance so far their training units might simply be quite bad so not much is lost in training quality if they leave. It might even be a better idea for russia to take personell from the better working units at the front and create new training units from them.

Ever heard of the 1848 revolution? Or aware that the individual german states and then the empire had parliaments? They werent in full power but the tradition was decades old when they overthrew the emperor.  Also outside pressure doesnt turn a nation friendly. The weimar republic was also revanchist and wanted to reverse ww1. Economic wellbeing for the masses was the key differentiator. The marshall plan was far more important than the denazification.

I am a tanker.
In general id say tanks are spotted far too easily in hulldown positions and when los is broken up like shooting through trees etc.
They are also far too hard to spot in the open or when moving across the field of view.

The rational argument of the threat from NATO for Russia is that NATO has shown a willingness to engage in wars that are not the result of attacks on members.
President Clinton's decision to ignore the stipulations of the War Powers Resolution and bomb Serbia into an ethnic partition is when NATO stopped being merely a defensive alliance, and became a way for the U.S. to present the veneer of an international imprimatur for aggressive military foreign policy.
Not even the lack of Congressional authorization is going to stop a U.S. President from using NATO to enact regime change where it seems viable, and in our 'national interest' (we can debate the 'human interest' in what Libya has endured a decade since Hillary cackled about a dictator's death - the Brits did a nice report on the lies and poor assumptions).  Our Nobel Peace Prize winning President went along with the neocons in his cabinet and we got to see open air slave camps on CNN.
Which brings us to the idea of how NATO can be perceived as a threat to Russia.  Russia who watched largely helpless while NATO carried out months of bombing on a historical/cultural ally.  The ethnic partition and formation of Kosovo driven by NATO (read: the U.S.) isn't even recognized today by all NATO members (nor all of the EU members).
Imagine it's 2035, and NATO has welcomed Ukraine to the fold.  Further imagine Erdogan is still pursuing his pan-Turkic and after dreams and is stirring Islamic separatists in the Russian backwaters against Moscow (surely these things don't only happen in Syria, or Libya, do they?).  Moscow, as it has in the past, taps their inner General Sherman and starts stomping mudholes in the civilized patches of their backwaters. 
Is it crazy to imagine NATO (read: the American President who could use a distraction, or just really likes the storytelling of the neocons who manage to festoon every cabinet) rides to the rescue of the media's ratings?  We're clearly witnessing the relative weakness of Russia in a conventional war with the West.  Would it make sense for them to leave themselves only hope that NATO wouldn't risk that nuclear threats aren't bluff.  That they would trade the possibility of smoking craters in place of Moscow and St. Petersburg over some Kazakh border regions?
Factoring the demonstrated willingness of NATO to intervene in civil wars, and the history the U.S. has in fomenting civil wars for policy ends, I would think having NATO on your border makes you more susceptible to an intervention by NATO.
I can understand why Russia would rather see Ukraine under some kind of guaranteed neutrality like Austria was in the Cold War rather than in NATO.

Youre not looking then.
In international relations intentions cant be known and can change so you have to base decisions on capabilities.
NATO massively outmatches russia in conventional military power so were they to decide to attack russia has little i could do except nuclear excalation. Having buffer states makes it harder for NATO offensive actions since no forward supply depos can be established early.
Now you and i know that NATO has no intentions of ever attacking russia but as pointed out above that could change. Just like NATO was worried about the Warsaw pact because they did have the capability to possibly successfully invade europe even though they might never have wanted to.

Yet the us is investing significantly in missile defense possibly rendering the nuclear option void. Also a nuclear war would still mean the end of russia.
 
Except the first thing he said was that it would be a problem. only later did he change that and id argue thats mostly because he cant make any credible threat to Finnland atm.