Centurian52

Heh, Russian roulette, but with tank ammo. Good luck, boys

AFAIK, UKR are already controlling all important heights. Basically, both Berkhivka and Bakhmut are shooting galleries for UKR arty. I suspect UKR are moving deliberatly slow in order not to use any new forces and also not to spook RU into full retreat. I think UKR are waiting for the main party to start to create a big crisis there as well.
 

Sorry it comes out hard to read on the board, 51 Oryx confirmed Russian vehicle losses in 24 hours. I rather like the line with 8 tanks to blown up to further identify.

The_Capt's little shop of horrors is moving right along.

The XM7 and XM250 have already entered service, first batch of both to be delivered late this year. It's happening.
So the decision has already been made. For my part I go back and forth on whether it was the right decision, but it's worth understanding the arguments for it. I may be covering some ground that you already know, but I think it's worth covering in order to fully spell out the arguments for this cartridge (plus this might be new information to someone else).
We are going back to the old argument of which is better, full power cartridges (normal rifle cartridge by WW2 standards (something like 7.92x57 Mauser, NATO 7.62x54, or Soviet 7.62x59)) or intermediate cartridges (intermediate between a full rifle cartridge and a pistol cartridge, something like 7.92x33 Kurz, NATO 5.56x45, or Soviet 7.62x39 or 5.45x39)*.
A full power rifle cartridge was the default rifle cartridge up until WW2. It has better penetration and a longer maximum range than an intermediate cartridge. The downsides are that it is larger and heavier, so you can't carry as many rounds, and it has more recoil, so is not controllable in full-auto for a small shoulder-fired weapon.
An intermediate cartridge is smaller, so you can carry a lot more ammo, and has a softer recoil, so is controllable in full-auto for a small shoulder-fired weapon. But has a reduced maximum range and inferior penetration.
The argument for switching to intermediate cartridges in the first place was basically that while full power cartridges may have a longer maximum range in theory, both intermediate and full power cartridges have identical effective ranges. Because telescopic sights were not universal, the effective range of a rifle was limited by the limits of unaided human eyesight, not by the ballistic properties of its cartridge. In addition, body armor wasn't really a thing back when the decision to switch to intermediate cartridges was made. So penetration meant barrier penetration, not armor penetration. A higher percentage of tree trunks will be thick enough to stop an intermediate round, but any soldier who is actually hit by an intermediate round is as sure to be a casualty as if they were hit by a full power round. By switching to an intermediate cartridge we gained the advantages of greater ammo capacity and controllable full auto, for absolutely no cost in effective range, and an acceptable cost in penetration.
But the dynamics have shifted since that decision was made. Every soldier today has body armor, and every soldier today (in most armies) has an optic on their rifle. Optics on every single rifle means that the reduced maximum range of an intermediate cartridge, which was only a theoretical cost 60 years ago, is now a real cost. And because body armor is universal, penetration now refers to both barrier penetration and armor penetration. A hit on an enemy soldier with one type of cartridge is no longer equally likely to produce a casualty as a hit with the other type of cartridge.
Do those changes mean that a full power cartridge is now superior? No, not necessarily. But it does mean that we need to re-asses. I think that 60 years ago there was no reasonable case for a full power cartridge, while today it may be a much harder choice. It seems that the US DoD has made their assessment and decided in favor of switching back to a full power cartridge. The switch from the M4 to the XM7 (presumably just M7 now that it's no longer experimental?) was explicitly meant to penetrate body armor, and to allow riflemen to take full advantage of their optics to achieve a longer effective range (about an 800 meter effective range, so I've heard). We may not know until the next war whether or not it was the right decision.
*As a side note you might notice two distinct generations of intermediate cartridges. The first generation only shortens the cartridge, but retains the same caliber as its full-power equivalent (7.92x33 and 7.62x39). The second generation both shortens the round and reduces the caliber (5.56x45, 5.45x39).

The XM7 and XM250 have already entered service, first batch of both to be delivered late this year. It's happening.
So the decision has already been made. For my part I go back and forth on whether it was the right decision, but it's worth understanding the arguments for it. I may be covering some ground that you already know, but I think it's worth covering in order to fully spell out the arguments for this cartridge (plus this might be new information to someone else).
We are going back to the old argument of which is better, full power cartridges (normal rifle cartridge by WW2 standards (something like 7.92x57 Mauser, NATO 7.62x54, or Soviet 7.62x59)) or intermediate cartridges (intermediate between a full rifle cartridge and a pistol cartridge, something like 7.92x33 Kurz, NATO 5.56x45, or Soviet 7.62x39 or 5.45x39)*.
A full power rifle cartridge was the default rifle cartridge up until WW2. It has better penetration and a longer maximum range than an intermediate cartridge. The downsides are that it is larger and heavier, so you can't carry as many rounds, and it has more recoil, so is not controllable in full-auto for a small shoulder-fired weapon.
An intermediate cartridge is smaller, so you can carry a lot more ammo, and has a softer recoil, so is controllable in full-auto for a small shoulder-fired weapon. But has a reduced maximum range and inferior penetration.
The argument for switching to intermediate cartridges in the first place was basically that while full power cartridges may have a longer maximum range in theory, both intermediate and full power cartridges have identical effective ranges. Because telescopic sights were not universal, the effective range of a rifle was limited by the limits of unaided human eyesight, not by the ballistic properties of its cartridge. In addition, body armor wasn't really a thing back when the decision to switch to intermediate cartridges was made. So penetration meant barrier penetration, not armor penetration. A higher percentage of tree trunks will be thick enough to stop an intermediate round, but any soldier who is actually hit by an intermediate round is as sure to be a casualty as if they were hit by a full power round. By switching to an intermediate cartridge we gained the advantages of greater ammo capacity and controllable full auto, for absolutely no cost in effective range, and an acceptable cost in penetration.
But the dynamics have shifted since that decision was made. Every soldier today has body armor, and every soldier today (in most armies) has an optic on their rifle. Optics on every single rifle means that the reduced maximum range of an intermediate cartridge, which was only a theoretical cost 60 years ago, is now a real cost. And because body armor is universal, penetration now refers to both barrier penetration and armor penetration. A hit on an enemy soldier with one type of cartridge is no longer equally likely to produce a casualty as a hit with the other type of cartridge.
Do those changes mean that a full power cartridge is now superior? No, not necessarily. But it does mean that we need to re-asses. I think that 60 years ago there was no reasonable case for a full power cartridge, while today it may be a much harder choice. It seems that the US DoD has made their assessment and decided in favor of switching back to a full power cartridge. The switch from the M4 to the XM7 (presumably just M7 now that it's no longer experimental?) was explicitly meant to penetrate body armor, and to allow riflemen to take full advantage of their optics to achieve a longer effective range (about an 800 meter effective range, so I've heard). We may not know until the next war whether or not it was the right decision.
*As a side note you might notice two distinct generations of intermediate cartridges. The first generation only shortens the cartridge, but retains the same caliber as its full-power equivalent (7.92x33 and 7.62x39). The second generation both shortens the round and reduces the caliber (5.56x45, 5.45x39).

Well, this is how Russia is solving their ammo shortage; fewer guns means less ammo required. QED.
Putin remains the master strategist.

Oryx is still adding Russian tank losses, so I'm guessing they still have tanks. The Ukrainians definitely do not need new ammunition in order to kill T-72Bs and T-80BVs, which are two of the most common types of Russian tanks in Ukraine. Although new ammunition would probably be very helpful for killing T-72B3s, T-72B3Ms, T-80Us, T-80BVMs, T-90As, and T-90Ms.

We send the Israelis several billion dollars a year, they could be encouraged if we set our minds to it. 
Been a lot of discussion of the 105 mm smooth bore matching up to the later Russian stuff. I think the issue for 120mm is simply that most of the available ammo is DU, and they had to get the bleep over it.

Warning: this clip is loud. 😁
Illia did not say, but another person that I follow on Twitter said this was filmed recently in the Zaporizhzhia Oblast.
 

I wouldn't consider two platoons of mechanized infantry and a tank to be a big unit

Capt’s Razor: Never attribute to cleverness and planning that which can be adequately explained by stupidity or materiel shortages.
This also applies to nearly every discussion on China!

This is a solid point.  APS is not a magic force field but putting them on the breaching vehicles in this case makes a whole lotta sense.  
Now as a thought experiment - what happens when each mine is a small kamikaze UGV and the mine field can self re-close?

Could easily be lead driver/team error,  not a directed command. A screwed up radio,  garbled transmission and the pressure to move, dont stop, could lead to a simple directional mistake. 
Attempts to correct that could further confuse if commands don't match or are lagging movement. 
On set, with actors/BG in cars,  if there's someone doing something wrong I'll stop the entire operation, cut Camera right then and there,  run over personally and correct them,  make sure they do understand and have a lower AD monitor them.  That's the safe and right way. Works every time. Slow is smooth, smooth is fast. 
Under threat, with fires coming in and everyone hyped up and energized, that driver/team leader mistake will be much harder to immediately correct and stopping the column is,  Ho Boi.
You can do it,  but it's probably better to keep moving, even if trans verse,  because (1) stopping everyone costs Time & Momentum,  and (2) starting up again costs more Time & Momentum. Better to adjust on the move, even if there's the real danger of compounding an error. 
Lesser of two weevils and all that. 
 

I wouldn't consider two platoons of mechanized infantry and a tank to be a big unit

Leo 2! spotted (note with tank riders for the CM vehicle expansion when it comes)
 

Someone looks like he is eager to get out there and kick some ***. 😎

aand we got replacements:
 

Heh

This former general's view:
 

The single muzzle flash isn't a red flag to me. I rarely saw our M16s flash when we went to the range, so I don't expect visible flashes to be very common during daytime. I'm more curious about why it would have flashed that one time then why none of the other shots resulted in a visible flash. Perhaps there is someone who knows more about gun physics? Perhaps there was additional gunk in the barrel that burned up on the first shot?
For my part, except for the obvious question of why there was a drone present to capture the footage in the first place, I'm inclined to think the video is genuine. Why stage it? What message could it be selling to what audience?

Then Russians will throw all available reserves to "further east" direction. Thus, we have to attack on several directions and cause distracting of Russian reserves to other problem places

Ukraine's Zelenskiy: Work has started on international investigation of dam breach (reuters.com)

ATACMS is a ballistic missile. Which means it ain't getting shot down by russians. Granted they have trouble with shooting down Storm Shadows as well, seeing as how various colonels, and now a general, spontaneously combust in a myriad of HQs