ArmouredTopHat

Speed of response and better accuracy on target due to direct fire. Given the UA saying that Excalibur is not working well due to jamming and even considering the accuracy of 155 NATO, it still takes time and a few shots on target to strike accurately. Arty is also a valuable asset that as you say has its own issues of dealing with counter bat and loitering munitions. Artillery might be a 'safer' option but its not one that can be available all the time. You cant support infantry in their trench directly with an artillery piece either. There is clearly still value with direct fire even if indirect is increasingly supreme.

Think of it in a combat mission format: It takes time to coordinate and get the artillery on target and that might require correction, whereas a tank can simply be radioed into position and handle the problem from a respectable range. 

From the footage, it looks like the tank is cleaning up a failed assault, or some sort of target up in the open. This is quite literally a perfect role for the tank that can pull up quickly, move while under fire while striking the targets on the move and then leaving unscathed, whilst also surviving munitions sent to kill it. (You see what looks like a grad or other rocket strike land very near as well, something that would have shredded anything lighter) 

Bradley chaingun vs Russian drone.

Curious how they are not even bothering with applying ERA to the hull front but instead covering spots  more likely to be hit by FPVs and the like

Very interesting to see a volunteers perspective on how things have changed since 2022 to 2024. His comments about vehicles are very interesting and really do highlight how poorly suited old gen vehicles are in an environment filled with drones. Certainly explains why vehicles never usually stick around on the front. 

I also find the comment about better Russian soldiers on the front curious as well. I view it as the Russians running low on the storm Z units and actually having to use their 'proper' troops to man the front now, at least more overall. 

I do try to be pragmatic about these things. I am happy to concede that tanks originally built in the cold war period are no longer entirely fit for purpose as we see, at least in this sort of environment. In the same way a tank from 1939 was no longer fit for the battlefield in 1945. I do not think tanks as a concept are dead, but its clear major design changes are required. 

There needs to be a long hard think about vehicle protection and countermeasures overall for future design to any vehicle operating within the battlespace where FPV drones are prevalent. 
 
I expect to see a major shift towards these things being on the battlefield in far greater numbers. 

Oh man you have no idea. I had to read a lot of North Korean stuff when I was at DLI learning Korean. Some of the stuff we read was on the Juche philosophy espoused by Kim Il Sung. The English translations don't do it justice to how bats**t crazy it is. It's a weird mish-mash of Marxism-Leninism, old timey Korean feudalism, and Nazi-like race science. Even the PRC is like "dude, we don't really want anything to do with you but we'll prop you up because it pisses off the Americans and we don't want a failed state on our borders."

Damn, I think we have @ArmouredTopHat half convinced that tanks really are dead.

I wouldn't say lack of Western training support is "at fault", more like NATO knows how to train and maintain a modern fighting force vs whatever Russia does and what Ukraine does, and Ukrainians are aware of what works and what doesn't.
As the article I linked notes, Ukrainian commanders are reporting lack of basic training, including familiarity with weapons, firing, many not having fired any ammo in training.
A training instructor at a center reported only 20 bullets per trainee and no grenades or grenade launchers.
One of the links you posted, the Congressional report, notes
So sure the West has trained 122k in some form but the Ukrainian military went from its pre-invasion strength of 200k in total to a million today. We can definitely do more training and expansion in Europe to meet demand.

I was wondering when they would do this and its really good to see. Combining NATO training with instructors from the front in relation to the reality of the battlefield and drones is something I had hoped to see for a while now. Hopefully it happens in the UK and other locations. 

I was wondering when they would do this and its really good to see. Combining NATO training with instructors from the front in relation to the reality of the battlefield and drones is something I had hoped to see for a while now. Hopefully it happens in the UK and other locations. 

I was wondering when they would do this and its really good to see. Combining NATO training with instructors from the front in relation to the reality of the battlefield and drones is something I had hoped to see for a while now. Hopefully it happens in the UK and other locations. 

I recall those same sources indicating / complaining that Russian FPVs were susceptible to jamming quite a bit more than Ukrainian drones due to all being on a similar control frequency. Its possible loss rate was much higher as a result hence the rapid burning through stockpiles. Saw frequent Russian complaints about the quality of the drones as well.

I suspect the primary issue is the corrupt bureaucracy in Russia, as Perun states its a feature, not a bug and very much strangles these sorts of independent initiatives to the point of being stillborn. Ukraine has clearly done a far better job despite the resource mismatch.

I'll give FPV drones one thing that I perhaps did not consider before, the Russians can do literally diddly squat about hitting the production lines to any significant degree in Ukraine either, its so widely dispersed across the country that Russia would need to raze the entire country to the country before actually hampering its production. (They do seem to be trying that though) As long as Ukraine gets the money and components, its people can build FPVs in literal sheds.

Fascinating look at a turtle tank example captured recently by Ukraine. This one is an especially sorry example. 

Russia propagandists claim these are a sign of evolution against drone threats, I see them as little more than desperation attempts to make old vehicles have some sort of spearhead role. This particular example is clearly an attempt to make something otherwise useless useful. I wonder what the point of even keeping the turret / gun is if neither were functional. 

don't know if this was already posted or not
 

I though this comment was outstanding.

I have vastly expanded our arsenal of very reliable DPRK munitions. South Korea is on a war footing. I remain a master strategist.
 
- Darth Putin, probably

So fascinating (and disturbing) watching this insanity.  Megalomaniac makes bad decision, whole country must die for it because other outcome is so much worse -- megalomaniac might lose face and lose power, oh no!  Better that millions die than one psychopath should suffer the consequences of his horrific actions.  Some things never change.

https://m-en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20240620012200315?section=nk/nk
https://www.ft.com/content/89fe9d6b-3a0f-42a5-af50-cff7f457a126
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/committee-of-swiss-parliament-supports-indirect-arms-exports-to-ukraine/ar-BB1osEse
These are very interesting developments on the supply side for Ukraine. It seems like the war is being taken more seriously.
Too lazy to look up the link but Argentina is also part of the Ukraine contact group now. 

I really do think people are onto something with the FPV counter UAV usage. This could really have a tangible effect on the battlefield. 

Its hilarious watching the Russian government officials get reduced to this level

Ukraine is cracking drone vs drone. If the Russians can't catch up tyhe effects are going to be LARGE.

I agree, there needs to be a system where enemy drones are detected at a distance, then interceptors are sent to engage. But relying on one system alone is asking for trouble, so point defences can fill in any holes - even if it is *shudder* APS. I would prefer using the main gun of the vehicle, which is pointed in the right direction by a radar: either a small one on the vehicle or a larger one nearby. A second option would be point defence drones which I think are quite viable, if bulky. But optics alone to detect fpv drones or submunitions might not be very reliable so I think we need radars, dispute the risks of emitting all that energy.

Its hilarious watching the Russian government officials get reduced to this level