ArmouredTopHat

Some interesting information on the Polish K2 acquisition which seems to be taking on board a number of notes from the Ukraine war. 

Well, that's one way to shunt what was initially an very good first impression to why the hell did I even bother taking the time of day to respond to this person in the first place. Truly Disappointing. 

A true cherry on top being that I must have an agenda rather than daring to have my own opinions on a subject. I am sure Rheinmetall is so desperate that they sent me as an agent onto a video game forum to drum up support. 

Some interesting information on the Polish K2 acquisition which seems to be taking on board a number of notes from the Ukraine war. 

Well, that's one way to shunt what was initially an very good first impression to why the hell did I even bother taking the time of day to respond to this person in the first place. Truly Disappointing. 

A true cherry on top being that I must have an agenda rather than daring to have my own opinions on a subject. I am sure Rheinmetall is so desperate that they sent me as an agent onto a video game forum to drum up support. 

Heartbreaking.
All kinds of social media platforms are also just absolutely swarming with pro-russian denialists lately, too. Missile type this, missile type that. 
The boldfacedness must be part of the psychological warfare against Ukrainians. Even I feel wary when I see them and I am not involved.
Luckily this forum is keeping a high standard.

Bulgaria is a huge manufacturer of Soviet-type ammunition and we import it sunce ATO times. But i believe USSR remained so huge legacy of "carrots" (PG-7 HEAT), that it can be used long time both in Ukraine and Russia.

A tragedy in my opinion.
I hope I will see the day when it is officially added to Black Sea

Like photos in the JPEG format are no longer admissible as evidence and videos are heading the same way. Its purpose is not only to present facts but also misinformation. 

Comparing the publically available data between the IDF and UA is not exactly straight forward.
The ukrainian units regularly posting videos get additional funding from donations brought in by the videos so they are heavily incentivized to publish as much as possible. They also have an easy time creating the videos from the drones video stream.
The IDF like practically all militaries doesnt want their troops filming so anyone creating videos is at risk of getting in trouble. They also have to put a dedicated camera on the vehicle and have to have it running at the correct time.
So even if fpv hitting a tank and aps intercepting a munition happened exactly the same ammount wed expect to see far more evidence of it publically of the former. So id suggest some caution when disregarding certain things purely based on posted video evidence.
 

The math supports that Ukraine has moved from a traditional (and heavily soviet influenced) artillery-based doctrine to a drone based special delivery doctrine.   Largely because they quite literally used up all the 152 west of the Russian border and most the 155 that anybody was willing to spare.  
They're replacing it with plans to build at least 1M drones in 2024.  While few of the drones have more explosive power than an RPG7 or maybe four M77 bomblets, the precision of delivery makes up for it.
Some statistics that showed up some large number of pages ago suggested that it takes fewer than 10 drones (and likely fewer than 5) to produce 1 russian casualty.  And the drone drivers get more and more experienced because they're at much lower risk than if they were in a trench at the front edge, or even crewing a gun that needs a clear path to shoot.  
So at 100K drones/month, and an efficiency somewhere between 2 and 10 drones/casualty, they can inflict somewhere between 10K and 50K casualties/month on Russia. Even at the low end, drones are causing a significant number of russian casualties.  It's also consistent with the transition we've been seeing of fewer Ukrainians in trenches defending against assaults, or clearing russians out of trenches, and more Russians getting blown up in convoys in drone attacks far from the front lines.  If drones were costly to Ukraine, we wouldn't be seeing lots of videos of drones chasing individuals.  Or a drone being used to destroy a single abandoned PKM.  Or sent as self propelled grenades to clear out blind holes in trenches.
They have a *way* smaller logistical tail than a similar amount of combat power in artillery, tanks, or aircraft.  A suitcase full of drones that weighs less than a single 155 shell (not including propellant) has combat power comparable to somewhere between 10 and 50 conventional 155 shells.  And the drones just need to travel with a battery charger and some coax to run their antenna far away, rather than an M777 and a truck load of propellant bags.
Until someone comes up with effective counter drone and gets it into the field, drones are going to continue to make traditional maneuver elements obsolete at a rapid rate.
 

I entirely agree that a few Russian airbases need the ATACMS treatment. I really wish the Americans were not so spineless in this regard, and I am not hopeful for their future support either, at best we have a lukewarm support from Biden....or the whatever the hell insanity Trump will unleash. Either way we are really lacking that decisive US leadership that we have grown a little too dependant on. 

Can only hope the elections so far this year have set a trend...

I am arguing the status quo by saying vehicles need to change and that drone based interceptors are likely going to be the major aspect of defending against drone munitions going forward? Sure. Okay. Pointing out that tanks have a role, or that perhaps such extreme changes might not be so predictable due to potential counters is not my saying everything is fine carry on. Please understand that just once, I have tried to make it clear several times. Stop acting like I am some deep rooted conservative who thinks that drones are a temporary fad. 
 
Then you need to either stop debating with me or figure out how not to so frustrated from a differing opinion, because being so rudely treated is not why I am here. If I want to argue with people I will go on twitter and fight the genuinely brainless. Just because I have a different opinion that is still broadly supportive of the idea that war is and will change should not be getting you and others so wound up. I came here to debate with reasonable people, not be told to shut up and that my argument actually sucks. Its not a good way to change peoples minds. I dont pretend to be some sage who predicts everything, but neither do I expect to be treated as if I am incapable of thinking properly. 
 
I think I will just agree to disagree here. This is a wildly speculative scenario in the first place and its literally pointless to argue it when we can just make up any potential solution. I could point out how you rarely see infantry in and around armoured vics (Unless they are riding on them) or are caught dismounting in Ukraine, so the assumption that a PD system would be ineffective just because of friendly fire risk seems unlikely, at least to me. 

Because as I keep saying, complicating a kill chain as much as possible is so much better than relying on one means of interception, especially when dealing with such a potentially versatile threat. PD that can serve as an RWS in most situations but is optimised for drone munition intercept as a last resort without compromising on the vehicle role seems sensible here and very much worth the money. If it reduces vehicle losses by a certain metric then its absolutely worth it, because no matter what we say about the tank, vehicles in general are not going to disappear overnight. 
 
Could you be so kind as to specify what fully autonomous lethal system you are talking about here, the only thing I can think of is the AI on some FPV drones that allow a terminal approach which is not exactly a standardised thing yet, nor is it fully autonomous. the only thing I could find was potentially Turkish Kargu-2 being used in 2020 in fully autonomous mode. (Not in Ukraine)
 
I have literally given you numerous articles to potential ideas and solutions, so to say there is 'nothing' on hand is just a bald faced lie. The same swarm drone company making offensive drones has literally been tasked to make counter drones as well. 

I'm not sure why the link is not working https://battle-updates.com/small-calibre-solutions-for-c-uas-systems-by-julian-nettlefold/ But this covers the wide range of different RWS systems that are actively signing contracts to do with Ukraine and are all meant for counter UAS. So please stop telling me there is no other solution or that point defence / gun counter UAS stuff is fantasy when that is literally a lie.
 
Just as there are significant problems with actually designing practical fully autonomous systems. Could you actually provide a source that shows how close these swarm drones are to practical deployment? Because a lot of what I read seems a little whishy washy on the subject. Have they been featured in any major NATO exercise?
 
Concluding confidently that there is ' no counter' two years into a war that is probably going to last a fair bit longer seems foolishly premature, especially when there are active potential counters in the works. Gun based and otherwise. The only legitimate conclusion is that CURRENT systems are clearly not going to cut it against drone munitions at scale and there needs to be evolution to counter systems....which is exactly what is happening. Its pure arrogance and conjecture to declare something is a dead end before widespread practical solutions are not even being used at scale yet. 

It really makes me wonder at what point do units get fed up enough to stop enabling this abandonment. 

Recently, I came upon unofficial Lessons Learned for RU tankers.The most of it was written by Captain Obvious, however there are a few Combat Mission-related sections @Battlefront.com
The document is titled Tips from seasoned tankers from the Union of Tankers of Russia. AFAIK, RU MOD does not conduct studies or analyses (or send them to combat units). So, RU Nat volunteers (like this union) try to fill the void. This is for T-72 tank (all modifications). Dated Feb 2023

Fun part
Comment:
Looks like RU tankers believe Mango or Svinets cannot penetrate the frontal armor of Leo 2A4 (except weak spot) ATGMs like Kornet are not very common. RU tankers believe even these missiles struggle to penetrate both frontal and side Leo 2A4 armor (or maybe do not cause enought damage). They hint that they see Leo 2A4 as a Wonder tank (Tiger/Panther) that T-72 cannot easily defeat head-on, just as T-34 could not easily defeat head-on Tiger/Panther.

This is what I mean about needing to call the Russian bluff and smack them hard. They will just get more and more emboldened as their desperation increases. It needs to be made clear that if so much as a whiff of responsibility is found that something valuable of theirs is going to explode. 

This is what I mean about needing to call the Russian bluff and smack them hard. They will just get more and more emboldened as their desperation increases. It needs to be made clear that if so much as a whiff of responsibility is found that something valuable of theirs is going to explode. 

This is what I mean about needing to call the Russian bluff and smack them hard. They will just get more and more emboldened as their desperation increases. It needs to be made clear that if so much as a whiff of responsibility is found that something valuable of theirs is going to explode. 

You reminded me of this meme @FancyCat

I think the F-35 program is pretty interesting, because if the stealth works as well as it should (and we have some evidence from Israel it does, but not a lot), it is a genuinely transformative.
If Ukrainians has 100 F-35s, which could fly and drop smart bombs, not only over the frontline but also hundred kilometers into Russia, because they are untargetable to Russian air defence, the war would look very different.
If the stealth doesn't work as well as it should, then it is still good upgrade from F-16 or whatever due to the networked sensors and unmanned integration, but not as good and maybe not worth the money.

I think you need to stop thinking that I am defending a status quo when literally talking about future weapon systems. How does that even make sense?
 
Can we stop being so rude with the language please? Calling peoples ideas fantasy despite them being rooted in reality is a little grating. There is no reason to be this abrasive. I would appreciate a little more decorum and it would improve your points quite a bit.

We have used far more destructive weapon systems in such environments and view them as an acceptable risk for collateral. You are talking about bullets being fired in a warzone where there are already plenty of bullets and artillery being flung around in most warzones. Presumably an autonomous system would have safeguards to ensure that a person is not shot instead of a drone. Surely the same limitations are going to be put into drone munitions using swarm tactics to prevent friendly fire when operating in an area filled with friendlies? 

All of this ignores the primary point that drone based interceptors are going to be a primary means of defence. 
 
ERA is not exactly great when it comes to collateral yet its used heavily anyway. We have long since adopted basic ideas such as keeping dismounted infantry away from a vehicle, the same principle applies here. Ukraine fires tens of thousands of rounds into the sky against shaeds with a variety of weapons to down them. Those bullets also come down eventually. Collateral happens but the sad reality is that its part of the war. Is your argument really that because someone might get shot by accident the whole effort is worthless? I could argue collateral being a problem for offensive swarm drones but I dont use it as an argument that their whole enterprise is a waste of time. 
 
Ok I am sorry but pointing to a video of some drones doing a preprogramed show routine with fancy lights is nothing near an autonomous swarm system designed to hunt and kill a variety of targets on a battlefield. Your telling me I am making stuff up but the fact of the matter is there is no lethal drone swarm system in service and there is unlikely to be one for a while yet. 

https://mwi.westpoint.edu/swarm-clouds-on-the-horizon-exploring-the-future-of-drone-swarm-proliferation/#:~:text=In May 2021%2C Israel used,to the Israel Defense Forces.

The closest we have had is this, and its entirely non lethal system. 

https://bluehalo.com/bluehalo-selected-for-u-s-army-next-generation-c-uas-missile/

There are lethal systems in the works, but in the case of the US, the very same system is now being selected as a C-UAS role. So defence swarms are likely to be fielded in combat at the same time as offensive ones. Either way its still very early days for swarms. 
Again, you are taking the example of a big expensive / static systems that were designed to down anti ship missiles in the 80s and applying it to new designs being made in the last decade. Of course a CIWS is big and expensive. No one is suggesting we plaster one of those onto everything. 

https://battle-updates.com/small-calibre-solutions-for-c-uas-systems-by-julian-nettlefold/

There are a plethora of promising systems literally in existence that could become very promising with the appropriate development. All the ingredients already exist and people are actively cooking with them. These systems are only going to get cheaper and more prolific. 
 
A swarm operating has to communicate with others in its group in some way, otherwise what is stopping the entire group from hitting one target instead of many more efficiently? How else is the swarm supposed to receive orders or be managed on the battlefield? If the system is entirely autonomous that implies a lot of hurdles have been jumped. Most envision a lot of 'autonomous' systems to still be managed in some way shape or form by humans. Because AI does in fact have limitations that can constrain. 

Of course, that would apply to a autonomous PD system as well, but if its integrated into a manned vehicle it literally has the crew to manage it.
The point of something smaller and cheaper PD wise would be that you could in fact stick it onto every vehicle. an RWS system is not all that expensive compared to overall vehicle costs and certainly nothing like the cost of something like CIWS. The primary idea remains that a drone based interception system would still be handling the majority of incoming. Add a greater redundancy to logistics and a means for them to defend themselves, plus constrained enemy ISR that makes it harder for them to locate your logistics in the first place and its not unreasonable to assume this whole system is possible. 
 
Even a fully autonomous system will be noisy and easily found on a thermal or IR system. 
For humans maybe. 
Drones started out pretty expensive, plenty still are. Why are we assuming a potential pd system has to have the cost of a CIWS? Why do drones get to evolve as a system but nothing else can?
Perhaps if you were to be a little less condescending about what remains a largely theoretical possibility of what future warfare might look like we could have a better debate on it.  

I have been busy so only able to partly lurk the updates overhere and elsewhere. I have an observation on the whole tank is dead topic (linked to the infantry screening, density and Russia's CA capability assessments) which I felt like sharing.
Not to light a fire under it again, but imo there are separate area's of interest which keep continuing to mingle in discussions. 
A) One has a perspective of analysis in order to explain the current war and how things happened the way they did -afterthoughts and analysis which will continue for a couple of decades when more info becomes available.
B - Another has a perspective of 'where to go next' and how to get there (policy and vision development, incl doctrine & procurement). Lets call it future strategy.
C) The last perspective is operational as in what to do with what we have now / are doing at the moment? Do you throw all tanks in the bin and send the crew home, replacing them with what exactly?
This is perhaps not a complete or completely accurate list, but the answer to 'the tank is dead' isn't going to answer any of the problems in those area's of interest. A) doesn't decide that. And while A B and C should ideally be 'in sync' chronologically, we are now in a quantum position where everything is happening at the same time and that causes friction. Interesting friction, but it's good to keep in mind that the answer to whether 'the tank is dead' might be different for all area's but not necessarily logically incoherent. The correct question to ask oneself is 'what issue is actually on the table?'.
Imo the 'battlefront doctrine' is mostly inside B spectrum. 

Theres ~3 hours of guaranteed electricity per day in Kyiv, with 60-70% of the infrastructure gone at this point.
It is worse in regions closer to the frontline, I'd say the goal is nearly complete, so they are going to the next lowest priority which is hospitals.
Interception rate has been decreasing since 2024, the last attack was roughly 50% interception.
In winter there will not be enough generators to supply every town and village with one and these local gathering spots will be a big target for russian strikes. 

Realistically, they probably couldn't do that. Transformers are much smaller targets than refineries, so hitting them with Ukrainian domestic weapons would not work very well, and striking into Russia with Western weapons is forbidden.
edit: also the West would probably freak out if Ukraine targeted "civilian infrastructure". I already heard enough complaints about the oil infrastructure being attacked.

Well let me at least make an attempt. This missile is the way to knock back the glide bomb problem. It is the only even vaguely viable way of doing that I have seen, and Ukraine needs it YESTERDAY. 

Seems it was not the only medical facility hit in Kyiv today either.