Centurian52

That all sounds very truthy. But at no point in time has that ever been how anything works. Anti-tank munitions have always been far cheaper than the tanks they are meant to destroy. If you ever have an anti-tank munition that is more epensive than a tank, you don't have an anti-tank munition. There is a fancy name for this actually. It's the shot exchange problem, and it has been plaguing air defenses throughout this war as they struggle with decisions over whether or not to expend an expensive missile to shoot down a cheap drone (in fact this is the driving factor behind the big comeback that anti-aircraft guns have made, since they can shoot down cheap drones without expending ammunition that is more valuable than the drone). So no, cheap ways of killing tanks do not render tanks obsolete. Cheap ways of killing anything has never rendered anything obsolete.
And I should remind everyone that the tank losses in this war are not remotely unprecidented (no one mentioned heavy losses recently, but I think the number of tanks destroyed is a large part of why so many people seem to think the tank is obsolete). Tanks have taken extremely heavy losses in every single conventional war they have ever participated in (I'll admit that they haven't taken heavy losses in many guerilla wars as far as I'm aware). The Isrealis lost around 400 tanks in just the two weeks of the Yom Kippur War. The Germans lost around 25,000 tanks in WW2, with the combined US and British tank losses being about the same, and Soviet tank losses being over 80,000. Yes, this war is an order of magnitude smaller than WW2, but tank losses have also been about an order of magnitude smaller. As far as I can tell tank losses in this war have been about on par with WW2 when you adjust for scale.
I think I am in agreement with Steve that what is likely to render tanks obsolete in the near future is gun armed UGVs. The services that a tank provides on the battlefield are still essential. But once something comes along that can do a better job of providing those services, such as a UGV, the tank will no longer be required. So I think once a country somewhere adopts a gun-variant of a UGV the tank will be obsolecent (and fully obsolete once that gun UGV has been produced in sufficient quantities). When that happens it will not be Javelins or Lancets that rendered the tank obsolete, but a better direct-fire asset. Even when UGVs do render manned tanks obsolete, I'm still not sure that it won't be entirely appropriate to think of them as unmanned tanks.

I think you're being sarcastic, but honestly a more detailed fire-panning interface would be awesome. Are you sure you're talking to the audience you think you're talking to?
Also, based on what we're seeing in this war, obstacles and breaching ops clearly are a requirement. At least if you want something that can accurately simulate warfare. And that is what I want. If it wasn't, I'd be playing Starcraft.

I think you're being sarcastic, but honestly a more detailed fire-panning interface would be awesome. Are you sure you're talking to the audience you think you're talking to?
Also, based on what we're seeing in this war, obstacles and breaching ops clearly are a requirement. At least if you want something that can accurately simulate warfare. And that is what I want. If it wasn't, I'd be playing Starcraft.

I think we've established that starving the Russians in Crimea isn't an ideal way of defeating them, since that starves the civilians too. In fact it might be worse for the civilians, since the Russians will probably steal food from the civilians before starving themselves.
But once Crimea is cut off the Russians won't just be cut off from food resupply, but from ammunition resupply and reinforcements as well. Their ability to resist a determined push will be decidedly finite. It might still come to starving them (if that's what it takes then that's what it takes), but for the sake of keeping civilian suffering to a minimum I don't think that should be plan A.

I assume the constant raiding across the Dnipro is about keeping up a constant pressure, so that the Russians either have to maintain forces to prevent a river crossing or suffer the Ukrainians actually conducting a river crossing. I seriously doubt they have any major river crossing operation planned beyond being ready to conduct an opportunistic crossing if the Russians ever move too many units away.
As for an amphibious invasion of Crimea, I don't think it's even on the cards. Amphibious invasions are extremely risky and difficult (complicated to supply and reinforce, and failure could mean the loss of the entire invasion force). Historically they are only conducted when success is virtually guaranteed. Air and naval superiority are also generally considered prerequisites for any amphibious invasion.

A reason for this is that computer sims cannot be argued with. They roll the dice and something happens.  If an expert has context that may shape that outcome and the computer does not have it programmed in, it is hard to get it rolled in during the wargame itself.
It really depends what one is doing.  If you are doing a staff wargame to explore COAs/Options Bil’s table top systems is definitely the way to go.  An e-table to make that easier is always nice.  
If you are doing training, sims can be very valuable in compressing time and space while getting students to exercise the skills they will need.  It also gives them a feedback loop to hone skills.  The trick is ensuring the sim does not teach the wrong lessons or build in dependence that won’t be there in reality.
If you are doing Operational Research then a very high resolution simulation may be invaluable, but these tend to be much narrower in scope.  So if you want to know what a certain new system is doing to do to your larger organization for example, a simulation can be very effective.
 

Destroying (not defeating) a company is a big job;  a battalion,  that's hard AF. An entire brigade? In close combat? (and not just long range slaughtering of a stupidly planned, badly lead,  daylight assault across open plains). 
Bloody hell.  
Yep it was not in great condition, but that's par for the course,  that's part and parcel of how you do it. 
The nice words here are "thrust"  and "maneuver"  and "cut off". 
You don't achieve that with plodding PBI, it takes vehicles moving quickly without minefields slowing them down and,  while taking losses,  not enough to stop them. Plus fires dominance. 
Looks like the ZSU has achieved mechanized maneuver at last,  at least locally.  They exploited the seams between units and chomped off the 72nd.

My day job is developing wargames for the USMC, and I wanted to address the bolded part above. Computer simulations are great, but they do not answer all the objectives of professional wargames, in fact many time the result is not even that important, many times the discussion and insights learned from going through the process are all that we are after. Computer sims also have a way of stifling this conversation, trust me when you have 50 professional Marine, Army, and/or Navy officers in a room, a table top game is the best tool for the job if you want to invite conversation and in-depth topic discussions.
There is also a dopamine hit players get from the tactile nature of a map and counter wargame and rolling dice that you rarely get from a computer simulation. That also has a value to get player buy-in, interaction, and enjoyment.  
Simulation based professional wargames are great when the results are important, testing a new tactical organization, weapon system integration, etc., but they usually turn into a series of in-depth planning sessions with a simulated vignettes occuring for flavor. There is also a stovepipe mentality with these types of games with different player cells huddled around their machines that is absent in table top games.
I've seen it all and there is value for all types of wargames in the professional setting and which is used depends on the objectives and research questions we are trying to answer. Table top games in professional wargames will not be going away anytime soon.
Bil

https://www.amazon.com/lamp-oil/s?k=lamp+oil  
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1480560/Lawn_Mowing_Simulator/
For the average “I just want things to go boom” player, perhaps.  If you want a serious realistic wargame simulation then obstacles and breaching ops are clearly a requirement.
 

3rd assault brigade had confirmed liberation of Andriivka. Yesterday the brigade refuted claims of MoD deputy Hanna Maliar, that the village under UKR control. UKR troops really were in the village, but premature statement has interfered to accomplish the operation. It's knowingly, on tactical level, information about changes on the ground comes to higher HQs with delay, because company/battalion commanders if they lost a ground try to restore situation and only after several failed attempts reported on higher level about troubles - they just fear they will be fu...d out by higher chief. But, when Russian higher HQs get information first about ground loosing from social networks or premature official persons statements, they fu.k out lower HQs at all, but have a time to conduct some counter-actions, if information confirmed. Yesterday Russians after Maliar statement launched fierce "last hope" counter-attack with intensive arty support and the could prevent our troops to take foothold in the village completely. Only during next 24 hours 3rd brigade completely liberated Andriivka and held on positions.
Brigade press-service claims during long battle for Andriivka they completely wiped out enemy 72nd motor-rifle brigade. Russian suffered heavy looses in personnel and command staff. It's claimed brigade recon chief and three battalion commanders were killed. At the final phase UKR troops encircled Russians in the village and completely eliminated them. Details, videos etc will be soon

I think we've established that starving the Russians in Crimea isn't an ideal way of defeating them, since that starves the civilians too. In fact it might be worse for the civilians, since the Russians will probably steal food from the civilians before starving themselves.
But once Crimea is cut off the Russians won't just be cut off from food resupply, but from ammunition resupply and reinforcements as well. Their ability to resist a determined push will be decidedly finite. It might still come to starving them (if that's what it takes then that's what it takes), but for the sake of keeping civilian suffering to a minimum I don't think that should be plan A.

I assume the constant raiding across the Dnipro is about keeping up a constant pressure, so that the Russians either have to maintain forces to prevent a river crossing or suffer the Ukrainians actually conducting a river crossing. I seriously doubt they have any major river crossing operation planned beyond being ready to conduct an opportunistic crossing if the Russians ever move too many units away.
As for an amphibious invasion of Crimea, I don't think it's even on the cards. Amphibious invasions are extremely risky and difficult (complicated to supply and reinforce, and failure could mean the loss of the entire invasion force). Historically they are only conducted when success is virtually guaranteed. Air and naval superiority are also generally considered prerequisites for any amphibious invasion.

No one wants peace more than an invader. Invasions would go so much more smoothly if people just stopped defending themselves.

Colonizing Mars isn't insane. The insane part is that he thinks it can be done in a decade or two (he has absolutely no sense for what sort of timescales these things take place on). But, as an Isaac Arthur fan, I do think we'll colonize every planet, moon, asteroid, comet, and grain of dust in this (and every other) solar system eventually (assuming we don't blow ourselves up first, but I'm feeling optimistic).

I wouldn't give this channel the views, he's firmly biased towards Russia, just look at his past videos and even the comments on this one are telling. 
His thumbnails are funny though.

 
The general in the background of the meme is Luigi Cardona, who fought 12 battles of the Isonzo in WWI if anyone doesn't know.

No one wants peace more than an invader. Invasions would go so much more smoothly if people just stopped defending themselves.

No one wants peace more than an invader. Invasions would go so much more smoothly if people just stopped defending themselves.

Hmmm, this is the first time I've caught a tournament announcement while signups were still open. Having never fought a human opponent before, I expect to do poorly. It should be fun nonetheless.

No one wants peace more than an invader. Invasions would go so much more smoothly if people just stopped defending themselves.

No one wants peace more than an invader. Invasions would go so much more smoothly if people just stopped defending themselves.

Besides being a great daily weekday podcast on the war, today's episode featured an interview with the lead of the Russia/Ukraine team at the Institute for the Study of War. He talks about things such as how their day to day job is, sourcing and how that works, and some of his takes and conclusions about the war and its direction (and a couple wrong ones they had in the past).
 
Interview starts around 26:40.

Musk confronted by British reporter on the street.

Hmmm, this is the first time I've caught a tournament announcement while signups were still open. Having never fought a human opponent before, I expect to do poorly. It should be fun nonetheless.

I think it's really smart to do it now. If they did something like this right after the F-16s arrived, it would be very easy to claim it's West fault, etc. Right now, not really. And at the same time it makes the F-16s more of a threat - "look what we did with like three Su-24s, once we have F-16, we can do things like this every day".

No. The 135 come from Danish, Belgian & German stock IIRC. Those Italian would be on top.