CHARLIE43

Of course I make a wisecrack (FISA warrant and all) and eat my words.... https://www.cfr.org/blog/why-military-leaders-need-rethink-battlefield-intelligence-smartphone-era Ukrainian forces recently leveraged Russian phone signals to strike a temporary base in the occupied city of Makiivka, killing dozens (or more—the toll is highly disputed). The Russian Defense Ministry subsequently issued a rare statement attributing the unprecedented loss to the widespread, albeit unauthorized, use of personal phones. While powered on, the phones had been pinging Ukraine’s cellular network, allowing Ukrainian forces to triangulate precise location information. Then this PDF report: https://www.enea.com/insights/location-tracking-on-battlefield/ Maybe, my whole idea doesn't pan out, but then again both state some reasons for using cellphones.

I brought it up because I've seen all kinds of video that seem to be from cellphones and such, and even bullets embedded in them from this battlefield is why I asked. There is even video of what looks like a soldier on a BMP texting, just as it gets hit with something (most likely not because someone got a FISA warrant! lol). Sure there is probably a good and bad time to go texting a commander further up the chain. As far as whether or not to implement them in CM, I was kinda referring to what seems like a total lack of C2 is certain situations, when in fact there might actually be some sort of comms going on beyond the usual means is all.

One of the things I thought about through this whole video are the C2 problems that could arise. It's kinda obvious that there were probably a lot of casualties during the assault and I just kept thinking, what happens when all of the normal secure channels of C2 are lost or seriously degraded? Whether it be the military radios in the vehicles themselves, or those on designated "radiomen" are lost, what could be the line of communication with command that say a band of regular infantry or crew could use once the objective is reached? Of course the UAVs are going to give a sense of what is going on, but is it possible that the one means of communication that almost all humans have these days is used in such a case? The cellphone? Should that be taken into account in future implementations of CM? So, the lesser military doesn't have some complex PDA or satellite system backed by the elite powers of country X. But it seems that just about every person on the planet has some form of communication through these little devises. Why not take that into account as well?

Thanks for the answers! Puts the conversation more into perspective. @ArmouredTopHat In searching for the Aegis, I instead found this video and can't figure out what the heck it is (the 8 wheeled platform with the .50cal, Javelin, and drones). Never seen it before.

Interesting! Thanks! I know that the conversation turned to tanks and such as a benchmark, but do you think that if a re-formed Russian military, especially the army, turns more to unmanned vehicles that are cheap and quickly produced, would that make it a formidable adversary to a NATO that is seemingly ill prepared to deal with such a force? I'm looking at the "No matter how it looks" part. It's just that the arguments get circular to me at times. We argue that the West needs to trim the fat, cheapen and reorganize it's forces and at the same time, declaring the Russian army impotent because "bloated, heavy, and way too expensive" is piling up on the battlefield, while they are obviously doing more than dabbling in UAV technology.

I found this, not sure how they get the #s, but it shows 14,777 tanks est. Even if you subtract those #s from that, (3495) you still have 11282. That's still a lot of tanks.

Got to thinking, and you know how that can go sometimes, but I wonder if the Russians are thinking the same thing. All the second rate hand me downs that the Ukrainians are getting equates to the West becoming weaker and weaker over time. Less backup equipment...What if they may be doing the same thing (albeit with their own forces) in an attempt at preserving whatever new stuff they already have or have produced since the war started and are instead using up old stuff to do so? It'd be interesting if that is what General Cavoli was getting at by stating what he did.

Well, I suppose that it would only be a good idea if you have already been spotted and are being chased by one of those detonating thing-a-ma-bobs. At which point you blind it and then get hammered by arty anyway. IDK, just a thought.

On FPV drones, I wonder if anyone has done experiments with using simple laser pointers to blind them. They got so bad with people pointing them at aircraft, the FAA made it illegal. Lot more than just one, but it seemed to work.

An incredible story: 9 marines from the 36th Brigade found themselves surrounded in Lyubimovka, Kursk Oblast, while covering the evacuation of wounded soldiers. They called in Ukrainian artillery fire on their own position, which precisely targeted and demolished the building.… pic.twitter.com/sSYiUIdfFF — WarTranslated (Dmitri) (@wartranslated) October 20, 2024

Thanks for that. Got to looking at the location and found this: Kursk Maps Show Russian Forces Slice Across Ukraine's Foothold

So, we have this: https://apnews.com/article/alabuga-russia-africa-ukraine-war-shahed-drones-bc175c4c98d752dc298c23434637417e Perhaps some of the North Koreans are headed to the Alabuga Special Economic Zone to learn and make these drones if they haven't already. I know the zone was struck back in April by a Ukrainian UAV, but hit the dorms instead of the manufacturing facility. Plus it brings into question as to just how quickly the Russians could actually accelerate any post war rebuilding effort with outside help, knowingly or not.

Ah, when I saw General Cavoli's statement, three things came to mind. 1. It was as you said, merely a warning to perpetuate the ongoing inflated MIC spending. 2. He is privy to intelligence that the average consumer of info isn't and is making a warning of such. 3. It was the prequel to what may be his farewell address to NATO when the election is over.

I'm confused here. If this is all true, and Russia is no longer a real threat to NATO for 10 years, and it's all completely political wasteful spending, wouldn't that actually give credence to Trump in his wanting to "draw down or defund NATO"? It's almost as if you're making his case for him in this aspect, unless I'm missing something.

"Who can't wait for Combat Mission: South China Sea?"