How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[c3k]

5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Someone posted this fantastic video a few days ago challenging the notion that "the tank is dead" because of what we see in this war.  It's *VERY* good and quite entertaining.  I recommend it with two thumbs up.  Except for one thing

The presenter makes an incredibly strong case that the tank, today, isn't dead.  I don't question that at all.  New threats?  Yes, but every war tends to produce one or more of these things.  As the presenter would say, it's normal.

The one shortcoming of this video is right at the end.  He lays out an excellent argument about how important it is to take into account all battlefield capabilities and assess them as a whole.  This is one reason why the Russians are doing so poorly and the Ukrainians so well when it comes to armored warfare.  The Russians aren't using all their battlefield assets in a combined way.

He also makes the excellent point that there's no existing system out there to replace the utility of the tank.  That's true.  And he makes another excellent argument that the cost of the tank isn't out of line with the costs of other systems vs. their central threat.  Also true.

The problem comes when he says he doesn't see this changing because he doesn't know of anything that can replace the tank's role on the battlefield in the future.  And here is where he's violated some of his own arguments as to why the "tank is dead" people are all wrong.

While there is no singular system that can replace a tank on the horizon, there is a component of a new combined arms force that is already practically available -> unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs).

A single UGV armed with an RWS with HMG and NLOS missiles mean a single soldier, perhaps thousands of miles away, can effectively conduct offensive operations roughly equivalent to a single tank (limitations to be noted in a sec).  In fact, I would argue it can conduct such operations much better as a UGV is vastly more maneuverable, less detectable, and more sustainable in the field than a tank.  It is also vastly cheaper to make, so the impact of losing one is far less than losing a MBT.  And with the "crew" safely on the other side of the world, you don't risk your valuable Human resources like you do with a MBT (3-4 lives at risk).  You can also more easily rotate "crew" for a UGV so that it is always up 24/7.  Hell, you can even have someone swap in to man the system while the first operator goes to take a leak or grab a bite to eat, not to mention some sleep.

Will a single UGV replace a single tank in terms of combat capabilities?  No.  But that's not the way to think about it and, as I just said, violates the well laid out arguments the presenter made.  Namely, it's not about a single component but the totality of the combined effect that matters.

Combine SGT Smith, UGV operator, with SGT Jenkins, UAV operator.  Now you have two guys with more capabilities than a modern MBT.  Add in SGT Jones, EW operator, and now you have a dedicated person maintaining an EW bubble around the UGV.  That's 3 guys who are more at risk of dying from a paper cut than combat projecting force on the battlefield equal to a MBT with a crew of 3 or 4 at constant risk of dying.

I could go on and on here, but I think you get the point.

Now, there are definitely limitations for the UGV concept.  The first is that it can't carry as much ammunition as a MBT, which means it has to be rearmed more frequently than a MBT in intense combat situations.  However, for most situations that shouldn't present much of a problem because precision weapons mean more likely to score a kill first shot.  4x current tech UGVs have the ability to defeat 8x AFVs without reloading.  I expect that will change and soon 4x UGVs might be able to destroy 16x or 24x AFVs without reloading.

With LOS missiles there is some risk of losing the UGVs, but with NLOS missiles the risk goes down dramatically.  With NLOS weapons it should be much easier to reload UGVs because they don't have to be within LOS or small arms range of the enemy.  An armored supply UGV with a Human crew (or in the not-too-distant future remote operated crane) could quickly reload and have them back in the field before the enemy had a chance to recover.

In conclusion, the tank is not dead today because there is no replacement for it.  But there is a potential replacement on the way that appears to satisfy the arguments the presenter made.

It will be interesting to examine how UGVs operate in Combat Mission vs. current conventional forces.  Someday in the near future you'll be able to come to your own conclusions, but for now let's just say the word we use to describe them is "creepy".

Steve

My bold.

Yeah, that was me that linked this from Military History Visualized.

 

As to your points, here's a counterpoint: your UGV  IS the next tank.  It is the essence of mobile direct firepower. No one ever said the crew has to be inside it.   

[chris talpas]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

This video is hilarious, but if you can't understand Scottish accents you are going to struggle with it!

 

Thanks for sharing that Steve!

I'm in tears listening to it.  The Scottish accent adds so much!

 

Edited April 17, 2022 by chris talpas

[akd]

@sburke @Kinophile

71st MRR is in 42nd MRD.

[G.I. Joe]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

To my mind it we seem to be missing the fact that "it" has already happened, as in past tense.  And by "it" I do not mean the death of the tank, I mean how we think about tanks, armored warfare and conventional mass.

For example, tank is a core part of a capability, one whose job it is to translate energy into effects.  Higher levels of warfare then link those effects into decisions, and decisions into outcomes; this is the language of the communication of warfare.  That language has shifted.  After this war we will not look at tanks the same way we did before it.  Tanks, like battleships/dreadnought used to be a known metric of potential military power; a metric of land warfare, it meant something to say "we have 1000 tanks". 

After this war "we have 1000 tanks" as a metric of how well we can communicate war will mean something different.  We cannot un-think that.  All the remains is trying to understand what that after-meaning is or is not.

I do not know, but I definitely will say it was not what it was on 23 Feb 22. 

Excellent point. I think tanks are definitely in a "battleships in World War II" moment - still useful in some ways, with a niche to fill, but the writing is on the wall and that niche is evolving rapidly.

Where I think the comparison breaks down a little is that tanks are far cheaper and more ubiquitous than capital ships, so the transition can be expected to be longer and more complicated. In a sense, it might be better to look at it in terms of battleships and gun cruisers taken together...the transition away from big gun surface combatants is more gradual if looked at in those terms. These transitions can often look sharper in hindsight and as you say, it takes time to adjust our thinking... Reading your post reminded me that, if memory serves me correctly, Jane's Fighting Ships was still listing battleships ahead of carriers well into the Fifties (I stand ready to be corrected on that, it's been a while since I looked at a Jane's that old).

[db_zero]

3 hours ago, db_zero said:

Looking at the 18 SP guns the US sent and the radar that tracks incoming rounds. 18 SP guns doesn't sound like much. My guess is 18 is a number that can be competently maned and maintained by the Ukrainians at the moment. These are not typical artillery pieces.

The 40,000 artillery rounds sent. Are they mostly HE rounds or are some smart rounds and rocket assisted too?

These 18 SP guns sent are designed to shoot and scoot with a high degree of speed and accuracy. They were designed for use in a fast moving environment in mind.

It may have been an artillery war since 2014, but I don't think what the Ukrainians have is in the same class of what the the US is sending in terms of digitization and integration to advanced fire control techniques.

Probably a reason why the Russians bitched so much about the latest shipments of arms. The last thing they want to see is Ukraine in possession of dozens or hundreds of modern US SP artillery.

These 18 SP guns will up the Ukrainians artillery game considerably. In layman’s terms it’s like going from a DOS PC running on a 1980 PC to a Windows X running on modern hardware.

Well that was a mistake on my part. The 18 guns are towed artillery not Self Propelled.

[akd]

When ERA works (but obviously not vs. NLAW or Javelin):

 

Edited April 17, 2022 by akd

[c3k]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

This video is hilarious, but if you can't understand Scottish accents you are going to struggle with it!

 

Pretty much anything by LazerPig is worth watching. Hilarious...but with a point.

[sross112]

12 minutes ago, db_zero said:

Well that was a mistake on my part. The 18 guns are towed artillery not Self Propelled.

Was there an update? The videos and such were stating they were M109 155 SP arty? Just curious as I think we were all under the impression that they were SP and not towed.

[Huba]

26 minutes ago, db_zero said:

Well that was a mistake on my part. The 18 guns are towed artillery not Self Propelled.

My impression is that those 18 guns and ammo are really a token force that won't have too much overall impact on the situation on the ground. 40000 is more than 2000 rounds per gun, this sound really excessive, unless you do WW1 style preparatory barrages.

What I think those guns really are is a first step toward UA moving to NATO calibers. 152mm rounds supply will dry up at some point. Already Slovakia sent (or will send) some of SP Zuzana howitzers, and more NATO 155 guns will follow. There were talks about buying some PzH 2000 from Rheinmetall  stocks- this might be possible if German government finally gets it's act together; maybe Lithuania will be willing to part with their too. Those would introduce a radical change in capability for UA army, those are first class even compared to newer designs. Ultimately though, the only NATO army that has significant stocks of mothballed artillery is the US army and if this war is prolonged, Ukraine will have to look there for equipment.

In the meantime 122 mm rocket (RM70 and BM21) and tube artillery (Polish 2S1) is making its way to Ukraine as we speak. There are considerable stocks of those available in Eastern European NATO armies. Poland had 13 modernized battalions of 2S1 at one point, we could part with considerable part of these I think.

What is interesting to me is that IIRC apart from these 18 155 guns from the last US arms package, it was mentioned that other long range system was to be delivered. I can only assume that it means HIMARS or M270. Those coupled with GMLRS rockets would be a complete game changer in artillery war I think.

Let's see what happens, situation seems to be developing really quickly and it looks like more and more weapon systems seem to be on the table again.

12 minutes ago, sross112 said:

Was there an update? The videos and such were stating they were M109 155 SP arty? Just curious as I think we were all under the impression that they were SP and not towed.

Actually I don't think it was stated explicite what guns were to be delivered. My bet were M198 or M777, as those are easier to airlift. Video with M109s on rail cars in Poland showed equipment moving to the Baltics I think.

Edited April 17, 2022 by Huba

[OldSarge]

20 minutes ago, sross112 said:

Was there an update? The videos and such were stating they were M109 155 SP arty? Just curious as I think we were all under the impression that they were SP and not towed.

According to DefenseNews it is 155mm towed artillery. An interesting bit in the article, but not too surprising, is the disclosure that the UA has officers in the US receiving training - I expect more of the same near the Ukraine border.

https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2022/04/13/us-unveils-800-million-in-weapons-and-equipment-plus-training-for-ukraine/

Quote

Especially with the 18 towed 155mm howitzers and 40,000 artillery rounds, which the U.S. is providing for the first time, the Pentagon hopes to help even the odds against Russian forces, as the war enters a new phase, concentrated in eastern Ukraine. Moscow is now expected to bolster and resupply its forces in the Donbas region, where they can take advantage of shorter supply lines and open ground to employ tanks and more long-range fires, artillery and rocket capabilities, Pentagon officials said.

“It’s the first time that we’ve provided these [155mm] howitzers and the associated rounds, and that’s reflective of the kind of fighting that the Ukrainians are expecting to be faced with here in this more confined geographic area,” Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told reporters Wednesday. “They specifically asked for fire support, specifically for artillery.”

 

Edited April 17, 2022 by OldSarge

[db_zero]

11 minutes ago, Huba said:

My impression is that those 18 guns and ammo are really a token force that won't have too much impact on the situation on the ground. 40000 is more than 2000 rounds per gun, this sound really excessive, unless you do WW1 style preparatory barrages.

What I think those guns really are is a first step toward UA moving to NATO calibers. 152mm rounds supply will dry up at some point. Already Slovakia sent (or will send) some of SP Zuzana howitzers, and more NATO 155 guns will follow. There were talks about buying some PzH 2000 from Rheinmetall  stocks- this might be possible if German government finally gets it's act together; maybe Lithuania will be willing to part with their too. Those would introduce a radical change in capability for UA army, those are first class even compared to newer designs. Ultimately though, the only NATO army that has significant stocks of mothballed artillery is the US army and if this war is prolonged, Ukraine will have to look there for equipment.

In the meantime 122 mm rocket (RM70 and BM21) and tube artillery (Polish 2S1) is making its way to Ukraine as we speak. There are considerable stocks of those available in Eastern European NATO armies. Poland had 13 modernized battalions of 2S1 at one point, we could part with considerable part of these I think.

What is interesting to me is that IIRC apart from these 18 155 guns from the last US arms package, it was mentioned that other long range system was to be delivered. I can only assume that it means HIMARS or M270. Those coupled with GMLRS rockets would be a complete game changer in artillery war I think.

Let's see what happens, situation seems to be developing really quickly and it looks like more and more weapon systems seem to be on the table again.

Actually I don't think it was stated explicite what guns were to be delivered. My bet were M198 or M177, as those are easier to airlift. Video with M109s on rail cars in Poland showed equipment moving to the Baltics I think.

Like others I though we were sending SP artillery but I then saw that it was not SP but towed.

In any case it looks like the artillery ammo situation is a potential logistical headache in the making. 155mm, 152mm, 122mm and rockets. 
 

The Germans and Sweeds have what some call the best SP artillery. The M109s would also be up there. 

Edited April 17, 2022 by db_zero

[LongLeftFlank]

6 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Don't get me wrong the "tank" or something like it will likely stick around but it may be a CP or hauling batteries and spare parts for the unmanned systems instead of being at the front edge. 

Perhaps a hybrid of the Israeli Nagmachon (tank chassis) and the old Swedish S-tank which could dig out its own berm.

1. As someone else astutely noted earlier, a weapons/gear carrier that digs in to become a mobile bunker when not on the move, with its best armour overhead. Plus maybe some kind of ceramic/composite (shaped charge diffusing) 'umbrella'. Such a thing could raise the profile but might also provide some camo/IR masking (like the foam mats the UA grunts are carrying around).

3. Also, in addition to manpads, some kind of remote control gatling -- can be roof mounted or dismounted -- for popping helos and drones, or enemy snipers if needed. But this is NOT an AFV, not intended for frontline combat facing direct fire weapons.

4.  Sorry if this is all starting to sound like the old definition of a camel....

Edited April 17, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[db_zero]

The old M113 getting more use. Battle taxi to move infantry around and protect against artillery.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, c3k said:

My bold.

Yeah, that was me that linked this from Military History Visualized.

Ah!  And here I was thinking you were no good fer nuttin.  I stand corrected!

2 hours ago, c3k said:

As to your points, here's a counterpoint: your UGV  IS the next tank.  It is the essence of mobile direct firepower. No one ever said the crew has to be inside it. 

At some point in my diatribe I thought about that.  But by that logic a drone is an airplane or helicopter, yet I doubt you'd describe some 19 year old flying one to be a "pilot" like you, eh?

Seriously though, I do think the remote control nature of the vehicle puts it into its own category.  Directly related to the tank in some ways, sure, but I think different enough to not classify it as a direct replacement.  Though now that I think about it in those terms, I think calling the UGV itself "revolutionary" is premature.  The transformative effect on battlefield force structures, strategies, and tactics (when they happen) might tick things over to "revolutionary".

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

The ammo supply issue is a big one for Ukraine, for sure.  I'm not sure how much stock there is of Soviet calibers within NATO, but I'm very sure Czech Republic still makes 152mm rounds as they still use it for frontline service in their SP SpGH DANA.  In fact, the Czech Republic just sent a bunch to Ukraine.  Poland also still used 152mm and 122mm artillery.

My guess is there's a lot of ammunition quietly going over the border.

Steve

[chuckdyke]

NATO two options Don't be there or don't be detected. Ukrainians better follow Sgt Schulz "I've seen nutting."

Edited April 17, 2022 by chuckdyke

[Battlefront.com]

I think ISW owes The_Capt a credit or somefink!  From today's report:

Quote

The specific terrain on which battles in eastern Ukraine will be fought may constrain the
Russians’ ability to take advantage of the number of forces they are amassing for the
attack. Eastern Ukraine is famous for being superb terrain for large-scale mechanized maneuver because of the World War II campaigns of the Wehrmacht and the Red Army. It is far from clear, however, that Russian forces will find it much more conducive to rapid decisive mechanized operations than other parts of the theater. The Russians have struggled repeatedly to seize built-up areas rapidly or even to reduce them once encircled. They will have to seize several significant population centers to achieve their apparent objectives in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, however, including Severodonetsk, Rubizhne, Lysychansk, Slovyansk, and Kramatorsk, as well as several smaller towns. The difficulties they have encountered taking Rubizhne do not bode well for their rapid success against other built-up areas. The ground itself is also challenging as it is crisscrossed by many small water features and, at the moment, still very muddy. The reinforcements the Russians are bringing into this part of the theater will help, of course, but large numbers of much fresher Russian troops struggled to take relatively small population centers north, west, and northeast of Kyiv even before getting into the Kyiv suburbs proper. The Russians must take the major population centers in Donetsk and Luhansk, however, if they are to achieve the operation’s stated goals.

 

[Battlefront.com]

ISW is continuing to sound rather sour on Russia's chances for success in their attempts to encircle Ukrainian forces in the Donetsk area, despite having ~22 BTGs massing in Izyum area.  They did not include any of the late breaking news Haiduk posted about pressure on the supply lines to those forces:

Quote

The individual Russian offensives in the east are thus unlikely to proceed dramatically
more successfully than similar operations around Kyiv unless the Russians change their
operational patterns significantly. The Russians could overwhelm the Ukrainian
defenders by the sheer number of different axes of advance forcing the Ukrainians to
spread themselves too thinly. But the Ukrainians’ demonstrated will and ability to hold
much larger Russian forces at bay in built-up areas for a considerable time suggests that
many if not most or even all of these Russian drives will stall. This discussion does not
take account of the quality and physical and psychological state of the Russian forces,
which we have considered in detail in previous reports, and which makes a sudden
dramatic Russian offensive success even less likely.

Steve

[billbindc]

4 hours ago, OldSarge said:

According to DefenseNews it is 155mm towed artillery. An interesting bit in the article, but not too surprising, is the disclosure that the UA has officers in the US receiving training - I expect more of the same near the Ukraine border.

https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2022/04/13/us-unveils-800-million-in-weapons-and-equipment-plus-training-for-ukraine/

 

Read this as an expectation from the White House and Pentagon that we will be dealing with the Ukrainian military for a long time to come.

[The_MonkeyKing]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

ISW is continuing to sound rather sour on Russia's chances for success in their attempts to encircle Ukrainian forces in the Donetsk area, despite having ~22 BTGs massing in Izyum area.  They did not include any of the late breaking news Haiduk posted about pressure on the supply lines to those forces:

Steve

hmm, I wonder is ISW still hitting the mark and over estimating the Russians. Or have they now been "calibrated". haha

[LongLeftFlank]

5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Seriously though, I do think the remote control nature of the vehicle puts it into its own category.  Directly related to the tank in some ways, sure, but I think different enough to not classify it as a direct replacement.  Though now that I think about it in those terms, I think calling the UGV itself "revolutionary" is premature.  The transformative effect on battlefield force structures, strategies, and tactics (when they happen) might tick things over to "revolutionary".

Yes! the very thing about the UGV, and any other vehicle for that matter:  up until 23/02/22 its armour protection has been dictated largely by 'survivability' concerns which in turn have to do with preserving its [heirs to the sins of all mortal flesh] crews' ability and gumption to place 125mm flat trajectory APDFSLBGTXYZPDQ kinetic rounds downrange in volume, to the (hitherto) dismay of its foes. Or, less successfully, to taxi and provide 30mm/73mm/12.7mm direct fire support to about half a dozen 18 year old Kalash toting human beans to 'control' of territory (+3 Stone Buildings? Objective squares?) which is [presumptively] tactically more valuable to their commanders than to the enemy.

Sounding familiar yet, fellow CM armchair generals?

...But which in the case of UGV, may now have precious little to do with the 'survivability' of human bean crews inside [not junior high school grads from Chelyabinsk but compsci whiz kids from Caltech [or more likely Krakow, Bratislava or Dnepro or Hyderabad Polytechnic looking to pay off their student loans and move on to their crypto startups sitting in air conditioned facilities in __________]....And far more to do with whatever weapon or cargo they are taxiing about the battlespace (yeah, that basic term just got redefined as well). 

...And as we all know, armour dictates weight, which largely dictates engine power and fuel consumption and logistical burden and...... cost to produce said UGVs in volume.

Oh, and did I mention -- terminating with extreme cynicism -- that up until the AI Paper Clip / Robot Dog Factory decides leaving decision in the hands of the Carbon Based Units is inherently 'inefficient' [see clip] mastery of this New Paradigm is hard wired to the ability and Will (in the full @The_Capt sense of the term) to fund it?

 

[enter new rabbit hole]

Edited April 17, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[JonS]

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Seriously though, I do think the remote control nature of the vehicle puts it into its own category.  Directly related to the tank in some ways, sure, but I think different enough to not classify it as a direct replacement. 

The CV superseded the BB (and CA?) without directly replacing it. Sometimes things just go obsolete.

[cyrano01]

2 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Yes! the very thing about the UGV, and any other vehicle for that matter:  up until 23/02/22 its armour protection has been dictated largely by 'survivability' concerns which in turn have to do with preserving its ability to place 125mm flat trajectory APDFSLBGTXYZPDQ kinetic rounds downrange to the (hitherto) dismay of its foes. Or, less successfully, to taxi and provide 30mm/73mm/12.7mm direct fire support to about half a dozen 18 year old Kalash toting human beans to 'control' of territory (+3 Stone Buildings? Objective squares?) which is [presumptively] tactically more valuable to their commanders than to the enemy.

Sounding familiar yet, fellow CM armchair generals?

...But which in the case of UGV, may now have precious little to do with the 'survivability' of human bean crews inside [not junior high school grads from Chelyabinsk but compsci whiz kids from Caltech [or more likely Krakow, Bratislava or Dnepro or Hyderabad Polytechnic looking to pay off their student loans and move on to their crypto startups sitting in air conditioned facilities in __________]....And far more to do with whatever weapon or cargo they are taxiing about the battlespace (yeah, that basic term just got redefined as well). 

.

 

Which leaves an interesting question. In this brave new world where the UGV/UAV combo can deliver the effects a tank might have done; and where UAV+Artillery can batter anything that stands still for more than a few minutes into oblivion where does this leave the PBI?

 

Do we still need them to 'close with a defeat the enemy?' Or could our unmanned and ranged combinations above do that?

Do we need them to occupy terrain, or m ore generally to operate in any area where the ground is too steep/rough/boggy/wooded or otherwise UGV unfriendly. Oh, yes, built up areas! Interesting question, just how mobile are UGVs in poor terrain.

 

How do we protect the infantry? In ICVs or APCs they have some protection against small arms and artillery but in a world full of highly lethal AT weapons is that a good trade off? Alternatively do they have to dismount way before getting anywhere near the sharp end,  and operate on foot and realtively dispersed? The Ukrainians have shown a pattern for this but it does mean your infantry are limited to the speed they can march and have no protection beyond their body armour. Does this mean we are heading down the Starship Troopers route for the infantry?

I can see the casualty sensitive, mainly Western, states, getting squeamish about being seen to send their human beings in to fight robots.

All of this, of course, ignores the need for dismounted troops in situations short of high intensity warfare. UGVs might not be too good at talking to the locals and gathering information.

 

No idea of any of the answers of course, but loads of interesting questions.

 

Edited April 17, 2022 by cyrano01

[womble]

And in a shock* announcement, Russia notifies the world that they intend to kill all the fighters left in Mariupol, even if they surrender, if that surrender is after the deadline they are setting today. At least it proves they're aware of the rules of war, so that "defense" is no longer available to them in any future war crime prosecution.

Is this for internal consumption, or the the Russians really think the rest of the world is entirely populated with brain-dead idiots?

* The shock is that they announced** their intentions to violate the "Rules of War".

** And it's not so much a direct announcement as a simple implication, really. But if they weren't going to just murder any surrendering defenders of Mariupol after their "surrender window", what do they expect to get out of it? Azov aren't gonna give up now because the Russians say they'll treat 'em nice.

Edited April 17, 2022 by womble
spulong

[LongLeftFlank]

23 minutes ago, cyrano01 said:

Which leaves an interesting question. In this brave new world where the UGV/UAV combo can deliver the effects a tank might have done; and where UAV+Artillery can batter anything that stands still for more than a few minutes into oblivion where does this leave the PBI?

Do we still need them to 'close with a defeat the enemy?' Or could our unmanned and ranged combinations above do that?

Do we need them to occupy terrain, or more generally to operate in any area where the ground is too steep/rough/ boggy/wooded or otherwise UGV unfriendly. Oh, yes, built up areas!

Interesting question, just how mobile are UGVs in poor terrain.

How do we protect the infantry? In ICVs or APCs they have some protection against small arms and artillery but in a world full of highly lethal AT weapons, is that a good trade off? Alternatively do they have to dismount way before getting anywhere near the sharp end  and operate on foot and realtively dispersed? The Ukrainians have shown a pattern for this but it does mean your infantry are limited to the speed they can march and have no protection beyond their body armour. Does this mean we are heading down the Starship Troopers route for the infantry?

I can see the casualty sensitive, mainly Western, states, getting squeamish about being seen to send their human beings in to fight robots.

All of this, of course, ignores the need for dismounted troops in situations short of high intensity warfare. UGVs might not be too good at talking to the locals and gathering information.

No idea of any of the answers of course, but loads of interesting questions.

Yup, all absolutely relevant questions.

If I'm Poor Bloody Infantry, no matter where, I will love the Machine -- robot or not -- for carrying my ammo, better chow and some less shell shocked guy to medevac my arse out if I get shot.

But I also make sure I've personally taken out of its loadout anything I absolutely need to have to eat and kill Ivan for the next 10 days. Because at the end of the day, 'dismounts' will be the ones who get to decide Who Won. That 'Facts on the Ground' thing.

While if I'm UGV 'crew', I don't sleep too close to my beloved vehicle.