How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

34 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

I think this is the best video of the Berdyansk explosions so far. Also shows the two Ropuchas hauling ass, one of them slightly on fire, too.

 

Wow...just wow.  So this would be like the Iraqi military being able to hit a port in Kuwait from Basra.  This is at the interface of the SLOC and operational LOCs.  This demonstrates that the UA can find and hit the entire operational logistics chain of the Russian invading force.  In fact it calls into question security of other SLOC nodes in Belarus and Russia itself, of course there are likely political constraints when getting into those. 

[db_zero]

A small town bands together to stop the Russians 

 

[Haiduk]

Russian column, destoyed near Makariv, Buk TELAR, Buk TEL, MTLB. and some sort of EW asset, probably Leer-3 and engineer vehicle KRAZ-255 with EOV-4421 excavator

Edited March 24, 2022 by Haiduk

[Maquisard manqué]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think it will go further than that.  In this case I'm not predicting the "demise" of MBTs because of their vulnerability, but also because of their production and lifetime costs, deployment limitations, manpower requirements (logistics in particular), fuel usage, and a bunch of other things combined with vulnerability.

...

It goes on and on from here, but I think you get my point.  As the purchase and support price tags continue to increase in order to combat the lethality of less expensive systems, at some point people are going to wonder if it's all worth it.  The big nations will probably slowly transition, the smaller nations will embrace it faster.  It's inevitable for economic reasons alone.

Steve

And that is very similar to why things like metal armour were phased out. It started not offering enough protection for the cost required. Any weapon system is (I'm just guessing here - not an academic) subject to the cost/benefit ratio of several things, e.g.:

a) performance in weapon/armour competition (is it lethal or protective enough),

b) can it be used/trained easily (or does it need life-long training & conditioning, e.g. longbows),

c) how much does it cost (can every soldier have it or only elites?).

I guess you'd also add maintenance and logistics for anything since 1850, and even more for the high tech stuff in use now.

It seems we were already in an age of armour transition/re-evaluation due to cost and vulnerabilities (even a few years ago where the Saudis lost some M1s to Houthi drones/ATMs in Yemen), but that's accelerating.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Maquisard manqué
gramma

[Haiduk]

Azov's mortar strike at the Russian trucks in Mariupol

 

 

[db_zero]

If the tank goes away as some predict then will armies just use IFVs? They will need something to transport infantry that protects them from artillery.

Those IFVs will be even more vulnerable to ATGMs.

I think too many are drawing conclusions based on the utter incompetence of the Russian army. 
 

Keep in mind the Russians have a different philosophy when it comes to armored vehicles. They are cheap and mass produced designed to be used by poorly trained conscripts. Using auto loaders means 1 less crewman to save personnel costs, but that also means 1 less person to stand guard or do maintenance.

The use of an auto loader means ammo is stored in a way that means and penetrating hit means the tank blows up and nobody survives.

Their IFVs look mean and intimidating, but are rolling coffins. They are death traps.

Russia doesn’t have an economy that can afford an army equipped with a modern tank like the Armada and they would need to have a cadre of professional soldiers to operate and maintain them, not conscripts.

As mentioned the same sort of argument that tanks will soon be gone came up after the 73 Yom Kippur War. I still have magazines covering that raging debate from the 70s.  39 years later…

The same debate also took place after the Falklands war regarding SSMs and ships.

They will come up with some sort of countermeasures. Aside from what’s already out there we may see something like a mini CWIS system that uses something like the metal storm system.

I also wouldn’t be surprised if we see gun systems like the main gun have capability to shoot down incoming missiles.

Right now the Paladin system is being tested with a shell that has anti-missile capability. 

Some mentioned the loss of a few M1s here and there. It’s not like we’re talking tens of dozens or hundreds at a time.

You’re going to take losses here and there. No system is invulnerable and there are going to be times you are forced to use tanks in situations that are not optimal. 

Edited March 24, 2022 by db_zero

[Offshoot]

1 hour ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

I think this is the best video of the Berdyansk explosions so far. Also shows the two Ropuchas hauling ass, one of them slightly on fire, too.

 

Wow, it looks like the front doors are open and it is a complete inferno inside.

[Bulletpoint]

3 hours ago, Hapless said:

Remember when infantry became obsolete when the first caveman hit another with a rock?

Vulnerability doesn't make things obsolete guys, come on.

Remember when battleships became obsolete? Yes, there are still warships sailing out there, but not ships like the Bismarck or the Yamato.

There will still be some kind of armoured vehicles in the future.

[Baneman]

17 minutes ago, db_zero said:

If the tank goes away as some predict then will armies just use IFVs? They will need something to transport infantry that protects them from artillery.

Those IFVs will be even more vulnerable to ATGMs.

I think too many are drawing conclusions based on the utter incompetence of the Russian army. 
..

They will come up with some sort of countermeasures. Aside from what’s already out there we may see something like a mini CWIS system that uses something like the metal storm system.

...

Countermeasures will still be around and improving all the time, but maybe they won't be needed for tanks.

As I see it, the tank was originally a breakthrough weapon, designed to 
A) Get infantry and firepower into the enemy line while
( B ) being largely impervious to the infantry arms in that line.

As time went on from WWI, (A) evolved and mutated a lot, but the tank was still useful in all sorts of ways because (B) still held.

With this war being practically the coming of age of infantry portable long range AT weapons, the utility of the tank appears to be diminishing fast. 
(B) no longer holds and (A) can be achieved in all sorts of ways that weren't available when the tank was born.

Fire support for the infantry no longer needs a tank, you'd be better off with several small unmanned vehicles with something like a CROWS on top - drones don't have to be airborne, right ?
The means for any other specialist task that tanks were used for can these days be carried or easily brought up to the infantry requiring it.

The all important ATGM and drone countermeasures you save to protect your mobile artillery and EW assets.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Baneman

[riptides]

Mechanize the person for ranging in kilometers, not metres, and you don't need MBT's or IFV's.

Space Lobsters come to mind. 

[db_zero]

42 minutes ago, Baneman said:

Countermeasures will still be around and improving all the time, but maybe they won't be needed for tanks.

As I see it, the tank was originally a breakthrough weapon, designed to 
A) Get infantry and firepower into the enemy line while
( B ) being largely impervious to the infantry arms in that line.

As time went on from WWI, (A) evolved and mutated a lot, but the tank was still useful in all sorts of ways because (B) still held.

With this war being practically the coming of age of infantry portable long range AT weapons, the utility of the tank appears to be diminishing fast. 
(B) no longer holds and (A) can be achieved in all sorts of ways that weren't available when the tank was born.

Fire support for the infantry no longer needs a tank, you'd be better off with several small unmanned vehicles with something like a CROWS on top - drones don't have to be airborne, right ?
The means for any other specialist task that tanks were used for can these days be carried or easily brought up to the infantry requiring it.

The all important ATGM and drone countermeasures you save to protect your mobile artillery and EW assets.

Drones are easy to shoot down and still rely on guidance that can be jammed. 
 

Tanks aren’t going anywhere. They will change and evolve, there will probably be a mix of manned and unmanned tanks. 
 

In a rapidly changing environment humans can still process act and adapt faster than any AI so that is going to be a limiting factor on any unmanned system and any sort of remote control is going to have vulnerabilities.

I’m not buying the infantry armed with missiles have become omnipotent when the Russian Army has demonstrated the complete inability to conduct reconnaissance or capabilities to suppress infantry. In most cases they are probably not attempting either. 
 

They have also demonstrated a remarkable tendency to stick to the roads and stay bunched up.

The lack of secure communications and coordination is also shocking and a huge factor in why they can’t suppress missile infantry and are suffering huge losses.

At a higher level ask yourself who is the overall theater commander? There is nobody which means higher level assets are not being properly used or coordinated.

You match a well trained army vs a predominantly missile armed infantry force and you’re not going to get the results we’re now seeing.

It’s a huge mistake to draw a few conclusions about weapon systems and effectiveness when there is a whole lot more going on and a bigger picture of incompetence going on.

This whole belief that missile carrying infantry is now omnipotent ignores one huge factor. The Ukrainians are not being killed or suppressed. Once that starts happening human instinct to survive takes over and people become more cautious.

Edited March 24, 2022 by db_zero

[Probus]

38 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

Wow, it looks like the front doors are open and it is a complete inferno inside.

Curious to see what H.I. Sutton/Covert Shores and Sub Brief have to say about this. They've been following the Black Sea fleet movements. I can't believe the Ukrainians got them. 

Edited March 24, 2022 by Probus

[ASL Veteran]

20 minutes ago, db_zero said:

Drones are easy to shoot down and still rely on guidance that can be jammed. 
 

Tanks aren’t going anywhere. They will change and evolve, there will probably be a mix of manned and unmanned tanks. 

I’m not buying the infantry armed with missiles have become omnipotent when the Russian Army has demonstrated the complete inability to conduct reconnaissance or capabilities to suppress infantry. In most cases they are probably not attempting either. 
 

They have also demonstrated a remarkable tendency to stick to the roads and stay bunched up.

The lack of secure communications and coordination is also shocking and a huge factor in why they can’t suppress missile infantry and are suffering huge losses.

At a higher level ask yourself who is the overall theater commander? There is nobody which means higher level assets are not being properly used or coordinated.

You match a well trained army vs a predominantly missile armed infantry force and you’re not going to get the results we’re now seeing.

It’s a huge mistake to draw a few conclusions about weapon systems and effectiveness when there is a whole lot more going on and a bigger picture of incompetence going on.

I think you make some excellent points.  I think another factor is that many of these ATGM systems that are causing the chaos are so expensive that most nations either can't afford to create them or lack the capability to create them.  Can the US military make the tank obsolete - maybe.  Can the Pakistani army make tanks obsolete - probably not.

I should probably add that relative to a Javelin a tank is doubtless more expensive, but assuming the tank isn't destroyed you can have it sitting around for years while each Javelin fired adds up.

Edited March 24, 2022 by ASL Veteran

[akd]

2 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

video of the first explosion at the dock:

 

Don’t really see evidence of a strike.  There is a single, significant explosion aboard the ship that produces a grey smoke cloud, and everything that follows is secondaries.  Unitary warhead (but first explosion seems relatively small), or maybe an accident (but it seems Russian sources are also saying Tochka-U)?  Regardless, the ship was clearly full of ammunition, probably for the siege of Mariupol (you can see rocket boosters initiating while being blown out of the ship).  Looks like something with a lot of fuel on the pier itself is also set on fire by secondaries from the ship.  And the fire on the landing ship parked behind looked pretty serious, but she disappears into the smoke on the other video before any secondaries are seen.  Hopefully they weren’t able to bring that fire under control.

Edited March 24, 2022 by akd

[c3k]

16 hours ago, TheVulture said:

Our intuition regarding kinetic energy isn't that great, particularly when dealing with things of very different mass - we tend to visualise things more in momentum terms. The Kinzhal may have the same KE of 220 Abrams at full speed, but it has the same momentum as 1.25 Abrams at full speed. Which comparison is more relevant depends a lot on what exactly you are considering.

 

The human brain does not "work" in energy terms.

Famously, during the US Civil War, I think the First Bull Run (when it was almost a social occasion as people flocked from D.C. to watch the first "real" battle), a group of Union officers were on a hilltop. An errant Confederate cannon ball (solid shot), came rolling along. One officer put his foot out to stop it. The cannonball took his foot off and kept going.  

His brain obviously saw speed and thought it was well within his physical "norms" to be able to stop it. Mr. Physics taught him an indelible lesson.

The terms MJ are hard to internalize. The results, however, do tend to imprint upon one.

[db_zero]

12 minutes ago, ASL Veteran said:

I think you make some excellent points.  I think another factor is that many of these ATGM systems that are causing the chaos are so expensive that most nations either can't afford to create them or lack the capability to create them.  Can the US military make the tank obsolete - maybe.  Can the Pakistani army make tanks obsolete - probably not.

I should probably add that relative to a Javelin a tank is doubtless more expensive, but assuming the tank isn't destroyed you can have it sitting around for years while each Javelin fired adds up.

As the old saying goes “he who has the gold makes the rules”

The US has already made the Russian tank force obsolete.

it’s been put on notice for some time that if your Russian tank force comes in contact with a well trained and motivated western armed force expect catastrophic losses.

[ASL Veteran]

6 minutes ago, db_zero said:

As the old saying goes “he who has the gold makes the rules”

The US has already made the Russian tank force obsolete.

it’s been put on notice for some time that if your Russian tank force comes in contact with a well trained and motivated western armed force expect catastrophic losses.

Perhaps, but then again, if the US was fighting Iran (just a random example) then I think a US force that had tanks would perform much better than a US force that had no tanks because the Iranians would have a lot of trouble dealing with American tanks.  If you simply assume that your opponent has the same capabilities that you have you could end up making yourself more vulnerable to a lesser opponent since all of your assumptions are off.

[TheVulture]

One of the Ropucha landing ships that got out of Berdiansk this morning is apparently sailing around in circles off the coast now. Anyone have any insight in to whether it might be deliberate or indicative of damage?

 

 

[The_MonkeyKing]

41 minutes ago, akd said:

 

Don’t really see evidence of a strike.  There is a single, significant explosion aboard the ship that produces a grey smoke cloud, and everything that follows is secondaries.  Unitary warhead (but first explosion seems relatively small), or maybe an accident (but it seems Russian sources are also saying Tochka-U)?  Regardless, the ship was clearly full of ammunition, probably for the siege of Mariupol (you can see rocket boosters initiating while being blown out of the ship).  Looks like something with a lot of fuel on the pier itself is also set on fire by secondaries from the ship.  And the fire on the landing ship parked behind looked pretty serious, but she disappears into the smoke on the other video before any secondaries are seen.  Hopefully they weren’t able to bring that fire under control.

https://streamable.com/dme6ft

This one one looks like a clear MLRS strike (Tochka-U submunitions?). Lots of data and different angles. Someone is going to have their work cut out for them to piece this together.

Edited March 24, 2022 by The_MonkeyKing

[FlammenwerferX]

.......

 

Edited March 24, 2022 by FlammenwerferX

[akd]

3 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

https://streamable.com/dme6ft

This one one looks like a clear MLRS strike (Tochka-U submunitions?). Lots of data and different angles. Someone is going to have their work cut out for them to piece this together.

Okay, for sure then.  The closest apparent “hit” to the destroyed ship appears to be the Tochka booster coming down.

[Probus]

Here is that ship being unloaded 3 days ago:

 

[Offshoot]

7 minutes ago, akd said:

Okay, for sure then.  The closest apparent “hit” to the destroyed ship appears to be the Tochka booster coming down.

Also, none of these explosions or their aftermath is seen in the video taken from the other side that shows the first small smoke plume from the ship.
It's possible this video is from the Tochka attack that the Russians shot down a day or two ago.

[The_MonkeyKing]

4 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

Also, none of these explosions or their aftermath is seen in the video taken from the other side that shows the first small smoke plume from the ship.
It's possible this video is from the Tochka attack that the Russians shot down a day or two ago.

good point

but I believe it is still " Tochka attack that the Russians claimed to shot down a day or two ago"

Edited March 24, 2022 by The_MonkeyKing

[akd]

14 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

Also, none of these explosions or their aftermath is seen in the video taken from the other side that shows the first small smoke plume from the ship.
It's possible this video is from the Tochka attack that the Russians shot down a day or two ago.

Yeah, looking at it again, time and weather seem different, as does the arrangement and type of ships present. Also “shot down,” lol.

Edited March 24, 2022 by akd