How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Bulletpoint]

4 hours ago, kraze said:

Because russians were "fighting" mostly civilians.

It doesn't matter what quality of your troops or their gear is when they get medals for literally massacring unarmed folk.

But even if they are monsters who only care about killing innocent civilians, they should still care that their tires are rubbish, and that 60 pct. of their missiles don't work? You'd think somebody would have said "Hey, we can't massacre people effectively like this"

[Haiduk]

Ukraianian troops is retaking Trostianets town, Sumy oblast. Captured Russians

 

Edited March 25, 2022 by Haiduk

[OldSarge]

While on the subject of counter UAV systems, AFRL's Directed Energy directorate has already been on it, first with a pilot project THOR. Looks like for the immediate future high energy microwave is in the cards, at least for area defense.
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/800274/thor-tactical-high-power-operational-responder

And now with a contract for a working weapon system Mjölnir
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/02/28/killing-drones-with-thors-hammer-air-force-eyes-counter-uas-mjolnir-weapon/

Edited March 25, 2022 by OldSarge

[Haiduk]

24th Feb - one more video of helicopter raid on Hostomel. Civilains film from the road aside Kyiv reservoir somewhere near Vyshhorod town. 

 

Edited March 25, 2022 by Haiduk

[Aragorn2002]

3 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Kraze, I've just watched the documentary 'Winter on Fire, Ukraine's fight for freedom'. Were these Berkut bastards ever punished for their crimes or did they escape to Russia and are they now part of that army of scum?

I dare anyone to watch this documentary and say that Ukraine hasn't earned the right to join EU/ NATO.

Edited March 25, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[Haiduk]

152 mm 2A36 Giatsynt-B heavy guns in work

 

[akd]

2022 Ukrainian Turret High-Jump Competition update:

10/10. Really stuck the landing.

[FlammenwerferX]

 

[Kinophile]

The key word there is "Russian". 

Lets see what magic madness the Pentagon/DARPA shoves up an Abrams arse in the next P2P conflict, first...

[Bulletpoint]

5 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

The key word there is "Russian". 

Lets see what magic madness the Pentagon/DARPA shoves up an Abrams arse in the next P2P conflict, first...

A bit like in WW2 where they kept adding more armour, torpedo nets/bulges, and huge amounts of AA guns to their big battleships in order to protect them from aircraft...

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

The key word there is "Russian". 

Lets see what magic madness the Pentagon/DARPA shoves up an Abrams arse in the next P2P conflict, first...

And there's the other interesting aspect of this.  If the RED doesn't have a useful tank presence, then why would BLUE need tanks in the first place?

Steve

[TheVulture]

Now what the hell does this mean? 

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

26 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

24th Feb - one more video of helicopter raid on Hostomel. Civilains film from the road aside Kyiv reservoir somewhere near Vyshhorod town. 

Here's a funny thought that just came to me while watching this video.  Nobody here has talked about putting a nail in the coffin of aerial assaults like what the Russians did.  Switchblade and Stinger could have made this assault look pretty stupid.

In general, though, the Russians proved something that's been known since WW2.  And that is an airborne operation that isn't (nearly) immediately linked up with ground forces is fairly easily eliminated by a lightly armed defender.

Steve

[BlackMoria]

It is a fallacy to decry the demise of the tank based on this conflict.   The lack of competence, well trained tank crews, the use of tactics from the days of Wellington vs Napolean, lack of sound maintenance, lack of logistics...... damn, I can go.

An analysis of the tank's future is needed to be done from a position where such variables like above are equal across the board in 'the best data points' consideration.   If with the best tactics, logistics, maintenance, equipment designs, etc. that the tank is found wanting, then have the discussion of the future of the tank.  This conflict isn't rock, paper, scissors where the tank is rock.   This conflict is rock, paper, scissors, where rock is a pile of manure, the scissors are dull and the paper is arse wipe when considering the Russian performance to date.

[Homo_Ferricus]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

In general, though, the Russians proved something that's been known since WW2.  And that is an airborne operation that isn't (nearly) immediately linked up with ground forces is fairly easily eliminated by a lightly armed defender.

Are we past the fog-of-war for Gostomel at this point? Initially we heard of one helo-borne wave. Then there was alleged more waves. Then we were told they were smashed and dispersed by a counterattack on the first night, but the information never confirmed that the Russians ever lost control/abandoned the airfield. I'm still not sure what really happened there, would love for someone to lay it all out and show the receipts to prove it. It is high on my list of events in the war that I want to see properly debriefed at some point in the future.

[The_MonkeyKing]

9 minutes ago, TheVulture said:

Now what the hell does this mean? 

 

 

Sounds like boys in white are going in to ensure humanitarian corridors.

[womble]

37 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

The other question here, why do you need a 120mm at all? What is the mission that needs to be accomplished? If your problem is "**** that room and everyone in it" does it matter how, exactly, you accomplish it? There have been a lot of interesting developments in terms of radio triggered munition fired from shoulder launched rockets or even out of an autocannon which could clear a room through a window a mile away. If, rather, you dont want the room to exist at all I'm not sure why a hellfire cant do the same thing? And if you dont want the entire building to exist? A JDAM, dropped from drone or aircraft, would do the job even better than our 120mm platform. 

Dumb HE is really cheap and you can carry a lot of it compared to missiles. If your assault gun is just that, and isn't trying to stand up to much over BMG, the platform can be really cheap too. The "command platform plus drones" concept allows your chassis to be specialised.

There are certainly alternative ways of delivering the hurt, but sometimes a plentiful supply of flat-trajectory boom is just what you need.

[dan/california]

8 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Sounds like boys in white are going in to ensure humanitarian corridors.

I think it means Macron is going to dare the Russians to start WW3, it is that or random hot air. We will have to see what they can pull together, and how quickly, in terms of an actual plan. given that the Russians have just demonstrated across the board military incompetence  I am fairly sure they don't want to start WW3. In fact in the absence of nukes I am fairly certain the Finns could take Moscow, based on the Russian performance so far, and the casualties and breakage Ukraine has inflicted.

[db_zero]

1973 Yom Kippur War. ATGMs and SAMs become the sexy new war toys that fascinated the world. Israel sufferers heavy tank losses and the aircraft loss rate to SA-6, SA-3, SA-2 SA-7 and ZSU-23s reaches alarming rates.

Under pressure the US decided to resupply Israel with tanks, jets, ECM pods, ARMs and smart bombs. Russia makes counter moves and complains. Nixon in a show of force raised the DEFCON level. World holds its breath waiting to see if WW3 will take place. Eventually a cease fire is declared and the war ends.

In the years that followed a raging debate takes place. Is the tank dead? Why spend millions on expensive jets and expensive and valuable pilots when SAMs and mobile AA guided by radar can easily shoot them down? The debate goes on and on...

Then in the early 80s Israel moves into Lebanon. In a stunning strike the IAF wipes the Syrian SAMs and ADA system off the face of the earth. Then Israeli armored formations move into action. People notice the Israeli tanks have weird blocks mounted all over the tanks and are bristling with machine guns. Supported by ample indirect fire and using proper combined arms tactics-something neglected in the early phases in the 1973 war, the Israelis  advance.

Soon the war resorts to the lowest common denominator-tanks, infantry and artillery slogging it out.

Tanks aren't going anywhere. The longbow at Agincourt put armored knights on notice and gunpowder eventually killed off the mounted warrior, but it took hundreds of years and in that time warriors mounted on horseback was used extensively.

There are already numerous counter measures to drones and guided missile like the Javelin. The Russians don't have them. Even if they did, judging from their performance they wouldn't have properly applied them and probably don't have the skilled personnel in sufficient numbers to use some of the more exotic stuff that requires a high degree of technical skills.

Unmanned vehicles to replace tanks are way, way off in the future. Not even sure what the militaries attitude on this is. They would have to believe its reliable and can be maintained and the soldiers themselves will have to trust it.

I would be careful about falling in love with drones. Like the SAMs systems of the past they can be countered and they have weak points. The Russians are just not capable of pinpointing and targeting them in a timely manner.

 

[c3k]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

It is not a question of "can't or can" it is a question of comparative "can".  Is it easier for a UAV/UGS to find their targets, be they kinetic or ISR?  Or is it easier for C-UAV/UGV systems to find their targets?  Right now the former is proving more true than the latter.

We should not, and there is growing evidence that we cannot, simply wish away the realities of unmanned systems on the battlefield, or that they are here to stay.  I get the sense from some corners - and here I am talking military professionals- that they want to sweep the UAVs from the field in a "real war" so we can all go back to normal business.  The alarming trend in all of our observations, at least since 2014, is than we cannot.

Finally technology trends are on the side of unmanned systems.  More miniaturization, greater processing power, smaller better cameras, longer and lighter battery life leading to increased endurance, more potent explosives technology meaning higher lethality in smaller packages and, the big one...decreasing comparative costs per unit. Everything that is giving one a slimmer, better cellphone is driving unmanned systems farther and faster.   

Think drones the size of dragonflies, with cameras and low-power transmitters. They'd relay signals from one another until a ground station gets it. Try finding those at 100m.  That is one idea that has been forwarded. 

Pervasive observation of the battlespace is a dominating concept. It has already been advanced far beyond what "reasonable" professionals imagined it could do when the idea was first put out.  It will only get more and more powerful, useful, and survivable.

Counters? Vehicles that don't look like vehicles, or one other (every vehicle is unique, so pattern recognition algorithms won't be able to spot them); emissions controls; kinetic and EW attacks; APS; etc.

Anyone thinking UAVs aren't going to be a fixture for every future conflict is seriously deluded.

[keas66]

7 minutes ago, db_zero said:

1973 Yom Kippur War. ATGMs and SAMs become the sexy new war toys that fascinated the world. Israel sufferers heavy tank losses and the aircraft loss rate to SA-6, SA-3, SA-2 SA-7 and ZSU-23s reaches alarming rates.

Under pressure the US decided to resupply Israel with tanks, jets, ECM pods, ARMs and smart bombs. Russia makes counter moves and complains. Nixon in a show of force raised the DEFCON level. World holds its breath waiting to see if WW3 will take place. Eventually a cease fire is declared and the war ends.

In the years that followed a raging debate takes place. Is the tank dead? Why spend millions on expensive jets and expensive and valuable pilots when SAMs and mobile AA guided by radar can easily shoot them down? The debate goes on and on...

Then in the early 80s Israel moves into Lebanon. In a stunning strike the IAF wipes the Syrian SAMs and ADA system off the face of the earth. Then Israeli armored formations move into action. People notice the Israeli tanks have weird blocks mounted all over the tanks and are bristling with machine guns. Supported by ample indirect fire and using proper combined arms tactics-something neglected in the early phases in the 1973 war, the Israelis  advance.

Soon the war resorts to the lowest common denominator-tanks, infantry and artillery slogging it out.

Tanks aren't going anywhere. The longbow at Agincourt put armored knights on notice and gunpowder eventually killed off the mounted warrior, but it took hundreds of years and in that time warriors mounted on horseback was used extensively.

There are already numerous counter measures to drones and guided missile like the Javelin. The Russians don't have them. Even if they did, judging from their performance they wouldn't have properly applied them and probably don't have the skilled personnel in sufficient numbers to use some of the more exotic stuff that requires a high degree of technical skills.

Unmanned vehicles to replace tanks are way, way off in the future. Not even sure what the militaries attitude on this is. They would have to believe its reliable and can be maintained and the soldiers themselves will have to trust it.

I would be careful about falling in love with drones. Like the SAMs systems of the past they can be countered and they have weak points. The Russians are just not capable of pinpointing and targeting them in a timely manner.

 

You forgot to extend your example out to the 2006 invasion of Lebannon . The IDF tank force did not do quite so well there  . They lost a bunch of pre  ADS Merk 4's didn't they ?  Doing some  silly unsupported tank moves down a narrow valley .

Edited March 25, 2022 by keas66

[dan/california]

39 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Here's a funny thought that just came to me while watching this video.  Nobody here has talked about putting a nail in the coffin of aerial assaults like what the Russians did.  Switchblade and Stinger could have made this assault look pretty stupid.

In general, though, the Russians proved something that's been known since WW2.  And that is an airborne operation that isn't (nearly) immediately linked up with ground forces is fairly easily eliminated by a lightly armed defender.

Steve

The next big fight is so likely to be Taiwan we should be asking specific questions about what would work there. And I don't think it will be easy to get armor to Taiwan after the balloon goes up, so we ought to think really hard about getting it there first if we need it. 

I mean the first question we really have to sort out is are the Taiwanese willing to FIGHT not get subsumed into the communist blob. We have had two severely contrasting examples of how a western trained army can fight. The Afghans could not have done any worse, and the Ukraine is going down next to Sparta in the history books. If the Taiwanese are motivated we need to figure what needs to be permanently parked on that island to make it fatally indigestible. Ten thousand Javelins, and ten thousand stingers top the list, but that is just a small down payment. Xi and his generals need to understand that trying is just going feed the sharks in the Taiwan straight, and not much else.

 

Edit: Whatever it cost to convince them not to try will be a lot cheaper than wrecking the world economy after the fact.

Edited March 25, 2022 by dan/california
added something

[Commanderski]

Since the Ukrainians have shown that they can beat the Russians almost anywhere and anytime of their choosing what kind of peace deal do you think they would accept?

I don't think the majority would want to give up any of the territory that the Russians have taken. If Zelinsky did allow some of the territory to remain in Russian hands there would still be insurgent fighting for years to come.

[akd]

43 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Here's a funny thought that just came to me while watching this video.  Nobody here has talked about putting a nail in the coffin of aerial assaults like what the Russians did.  Switchblade and Stinger could have made this assault look pretty stupid.

In general, though, the Russians proved something that's been known since WW2.  And that is an airborne operation that isn't (nearly) immediately linked up with ground forces is fairly easily eliminated by a lightly armed defender.

Steve

There is a Stinger launched right at the end.  Pretty sure we’ve seen it from other angles.

[dan/california]

Getting back to the current war, The Russians seem to have REALLY run their logistics into the ground.