How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[dan/california]

 

15 minutes ago, Butschi said:

I am not sure if this isn't too off topic but since it fits in with "The Future of the Tank (tm)", logistics and future warefare in general... So my knowledge of tanks comes just from war games - IRL I work in automotive industry (mostly AI/ML stuff). For what seems like the 1000th iteration, there was a discussion about about battery electric vehicles (BEVs) vs those with a good old internal combustion engine (ICE). Anyway, someone claimed that  ICEs will be around for a long time because the military will be buying tanks with ICEs for a long time. And I wondered if that necessarily has to be the case.

Given that for trucks batteries are currently not really feasible (because of the weight of the battery), such a battery electric tank (BET?) would have to be really light compared to current tanks. So, some thoughts:

• The current trend seems to go towards light tanks. Does it make sense to think that there while be a change in paradigm from ever thicker (and thus heavier) armour plus reactive components towards active counter measures (like APS and future more advanced stuff)? Such that armour could be scaled down to APC level (protection against small arms fire) and so make BETs feasible?
• An alternative would be to integrate batteries with armour layers, no idea if that can work...
• Several advantages of a BET come to mind:
  • less noise
  • direct access to a large electric power source for e.g.
    • lasers (advanced active counter measures, anti-drone weapons, ...)
    • way more computing power: AI/ML is still in its infancy but can already do a lot. Image recognintion will be an important thing for quickly identifying targets. Humans are really good at that, too but they have limited attention, can usually only focus on one thing and have a built in reaction time of several hundred milliseconds. But generally, the more computing power (GPUs...) you have, the more performant you get but also the more power you need. (<- Captain Obvious?)
  • Instead of the logistics chain needed for refueling, you could tap into the electricity network (if still active) or have independent solar power based forward refueling bases (yeah, a bit scifi but if you have fuel ready, you can still just use a diesel generator, or a small fusion reactor if you really want to go scifi so you basically have more options).
  • smaller heat signature - ICEs are terribly inefficient, so you generate a lot of heat. Electrical engines produce less surplus heat.
• EDIT: If we really go towards BEVs for the civilian mobility sector it ICE driven tanks (and other vehicles) would mean keeping a parallel infrastructure ready purely for the military sector.

Sorry, if too off topic but this kept me thinking for a while. Do my points make at least some sense?

Battery powered vehicles are going to/ are already infiltrating the battlefield from the bottom up, but if the batteries get good enough to run even a ten ton armored fighting vehicle, never mind a 70 ton Abrams we have already won this war and several others. Because if you can run an MBT on batteries the internal combustion engine is obsolete, and China is the only opponent of "The West" that doesn't go broke instantly as oil sales crater. Even more money needs to be thrown at this problem, but we are a couple of fundamental breakthroughs away, probably. An epic advance in superconductors, , super capacitors or both comes to mind..

[Calamine Waffles]

Battery technology is just not energy dense enough for combat use at this time, unfortunately.

[dan/california]

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/in-moscows-shadows/id1510124746?i=1000569415733

 A full hour long biography of Girkin and his relationship with Putin. worth your time.

[FancyCat]

1 hour ago, Huba said:

Movement has stalled mostly, nothing spectacular after retread from Lysychansk. It look like it can change very soon as UA is pushing in Kherson.

In other news, an extremely informative threat about UA armor, really worth reading:

 

I would say a essential thing to read. A very important tidbit, the utilization of Europe as a safe harbor cannot be underestimated. Ukrainian personnel train without fear of death, Ukrainian equipment is repaired, etc. This is a tanker? Quite good he refers to combined arms warfare with infantry.

am I the only one who does a double take at the fact Ukraine offers financial incentives for soldiers to register captured and destroyed equipment? Certainly a common idea, but I feel uncommonly seen in western armies….but if it stops corruption, I’m all for it.

[Calamine Waffles]

They have been doing this since very early in the war.

Honestly, nothing in that thread is very surprising to me re: the UA tank arm. Example: there was a Butusov interview from March where a tanker discussed knocking out Russian tanks with HE.

[danfrodo]

42 minutes ago, dan/california said:

 

Battery powered vehicles are going to/ are already infiltrating the battlefield from the bottom up, but if the batteries get good enough to run even a ten ton armored fighting vehicle, never mind a 70 ton Abrams we have already won this war and several others. Because if you can run an MBT on batteries the internal combustion engine is obsolete, and China is the only opponent of "The West" that doesn't go broke instantly as oil sales crater. Even more money needs to be thrown at this problem, but we are a couple of fundamental breakthroughs away, probably. An epic advance in superconductors, , super capacitors or both comes to mind..

Hopefully, but even a 'light' tank takes horrific amounts of energy to move.  Fossil fuels are amazing for providing energy density.  Unfortunately there's some side effects.....   It's like asbestos or DDT -- truly miracle materials for their intended purposes.  Not so miraculous on the unintended consequences.

[Huba]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

I am not sure if this isn't too off topic but since it fits in with "The Future of the Tank (tm)", logistics and future warefare in general... So my knowledge of tanks comes just from war games - IRL I work in automotive industry (mostly AI/ML stuff). For what seems like the 1000th iteration, there was a discussion about about battery electric vehicles (BEVs) vs those with a good old internal combustion engine (ICE). Anyway, someone claimed that  ICEs will be around for a long time because the military will be buying tanks with ICEs for a long time. And I wondered if that necessarily has to be the case.

Given that for trucks batteries are currently not really feasible (because of the weight of the battery), such a battery electric tank (BET?) would have to be really light compared to current tanks. So, some thoughts:

• The current trend seems to go towards light tanks. Does it make sense to think that there while be a change in paradigm from ever thicker (and thus heavier) armour plus reactive components towards active counter measures (like APS and future more advanced stuff)? Such that armour could be scaled down to APC level (protection against small arms fire) and so make BETs feasible?
• An alternative would be to integrate batteries with armour layers, no idea if that can work...
• Several advantages of a BET come to mind:
  • less noise
  • direct access to a large electric power source for e.g.
    • lasers (advanced active counter measures, anti-drone weapons, ...)
    • way more computing power: AI/ML is still in its infancy but can already do a lot. Image recognintion will be an important thing for quickly identifying targets. Humans are really good at that, too but they have limited attention, can usually only focus on one thing and have a built in reaction time of several hundred milliseconds. But generally, the more computing power (GPUs...) you have, the more performant you get but also the more power you need. (<- Captain Obvious?)
  • Instead of the logistics chain needed for refueling, you could tap into the electricity network (if still active) or have independent solar power based forward refueling bases (yeah, a bit scifi but if you have fuel ready, you can still just use a diesel generator, or a small fusion reactor if you really want to go scifi so you basically have more options).
  • smaller heat signature - ICEs are terribly inefficient, so you generate a lot of heat. Electrical engines produce less surplus heat.
• EDIT: If we really go towards BEVs for the civilian mobility sector it ICE driven tanks (and other vehicles) would mean keeping a parallel infrastructure ready purely for the military sector.

Sorry, if too off topic but this kept me thinking for a while. Do my points make at least some sense?

As pointed out, of course energy storage density is a problem, and that's all that has to be said. Solve this, and all this points stand, no discussions.

What I wonder is why hybrid technology didn't pick in AFVs yet. It seems to offer 90% of what you outlined here  AND an increase in endurance compared to conventional propulsion. All the really heavy equipment like locomotives, really big trucks etc uses electric power transmission anyway, it's a very mature technology. If implemented right, it should offer reduction in maintenance, take less space and use it in more rational manner. Allow doing away with APU, give an option to power all the energy weapons, probably act like an ersatz power generator for various equipment, etc. etc. There were some proposals for that like 10 -20 years ago, but nothing came to fruition, and all new AFVs are pure diesel/ hydraulics.

 

[Huba]

double post, please delete

Edited July 10, 2022 by Huba

[Huba]

triple post, please delete

Edited July 10, 2022 by Huba

[FancyCat]

Interesting they targeted a police base. Rosgvardia units don’t appear on battlefield anymore right, beyond those columns in the first waves? Some assistance to the partisan units is nice to see occurring.

im mulling over what happens next for Kherson. The warnings by high level Ukrainian government officials indicate a battle for Kherson, the question is, is Ukraine going to shut down the nearest passage to Kherson? On one hand, Ukraine needs to stop further Russian reinforcements, on another hand, I’m not sure why they haven’t lobbed something to blow up the nearest bridge yet since that would be top priority so maybe Ukraine hopes to generate enough fear to force Russia to leave the city?

 

 

[dan/california]

6 minutes ago, Huba said:

As pointed out, of course energy storage density is a problem, and that's all that has to be said. Solve this, and all this points stand, no discussions.

What I wonder is why hybrid technology didn't pick in AFVs yet. It seems to offer 90% of what you outlined here  AND an increase in endurance compared to conventional propulsion. All the really heavy equipment like locomotives, really big trucks etc uses electric power transmission anyway, it's a very mature technology. If implemented right, it should offer reduction in maintenance, take less space and use it in more rational manner. Allow doing away with APU, give an option to power all the energy weapons, probably act like an ersatz power generator for various equipment, etc. etc. There were some proposals for that like 10 -20 years ago, but nothing came to fruition, and all new AFVs are pure diesel/ hydraulics.

 

What is the design of that all new Rheinmetal tank whose marketing video is making the rounds? It is the only clean sheet design in 30 years that has made it this close to production.

[billbindc]

5 hours ago, panzermartin said:

Will facilities like underground parking lots in malls etc be enough to stop arty and MLRS from hitting storage. I doubt there are so many and large enough in eastern Ukraine though... 

I own a parking garage company and here’s the thing with parking garages: they are built to a pretty defined standard globally and in Europe in particular, they are built on the lower end of that standard in terms of dimensions. So….they are *terrible* places to store things. They are not warehouses. First, they have low roof space. You can’t stack up a ton of ammo when the height limit is 9 feet (which is a generous estimate for older built garages) and trucks simply won’t fit inside most of them. Second, they are typically broken up by pillars/buttresses/etc to carry the weight of vehicles. It’s very hard to efficiently stack in them. Third, few have an actual loading dock attached so ingress/egress of supplies have to go via the normal vehicle entrance and then be lifted from the ground to the level of the truck bed. Fourth, it’s quite easy in an older garage to over stress them with weight. Artillery shells in bulk would be a nightmare…especially in some slapdash Soviet era Trabbie hutch. 

Finally, a single big shell at the egress point shuts them down entirely. They are specifically built to stop vehicle traffic from anywhere else. So…it would be just like the Russians to do it but it would be quite stupid to use parking garages.

 

[Huba]

2 minutes ago, dan/california said:

What is the design of that all new Rheinmetal tank whose marketing video is making the rounds? It is the only clean sheet design in 30 years that has made it this close to production.

I think it is still a conventional diesel/ hydraulic transmission/ torsion bars. If it was anythng sifferent they would be highlighting it a lot in the promos. The same  goes for various heavy IFVs that keep popping up. There in- arm suspension seems to work for Koreans, but the powerpack does not change at all. 

[OldSarge]

23 minutes ago, Huba said:

As pointed out, of course energy storage density is a problem, and that's all that has to be said. Solve this, and all this points stand, no discussions.

What I wonder is why hybrid technology didn't pick in AFVs yet. It seems to offer 90% of what you outlined here  AND an increase in endurance compared to conventional propulsion. All the really heavy equipment like locomotives, really big trucks etc uses electric power transmission anyway, it's a very mature technology. If implemented right, it should offer reduction in maintenance, take less space and use it in more rational manner. Allow doing away with APU, give an option to power all the energy weapons, probably act like an ersatz power generator for various equipment, etc. etc. There were some proposals for that like 10 -20 years ago, but nothing came to fruition, and all new AFVs are pure diesel/ hydraulics.

 

The US Army has been experimenting with a hybrid Bradley for some time, we'll have to see if they decide to go with it in FY23. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/04/27/us-army-to-choose-whether-itll-pursue-a-hybrid-bradley-vehicle-in-fy23/?utm_source=linkedin&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dfn-rss-zap

Edited July 10, 2022 by OldSarge

[Haiduk]

@sburke @Kinophile

Lt.colonel Aleksey Tikhonov, regiment commander deputy of personnel of 94th operative purpose regiment (Urus-Martan, Checnya) of 46th separate operative purpose brigade (Chechnya) of Rosgvardia, Northern-Caucasian District of Rosgvardia. Allegedly was killed in Kherson or Chornobaivka during missile attack (in the post one user wrote "killed by NATO weapon")

 

Edited July 10, 2022 by Haiduk

[Butschi]

28 minutes ago, Huba said:

As pointed out, of course energy storage density is a problem, and that's all that has to be said. Solve this, and all this points stand, no discussions.

What I wonder is why hybrid technology didn't pick in AFVs yet. It seems to offer 90% of what you outlined here  AND an increase in endurance compared to conventional propulsion. All the really heavy equipment like locomotives, really big trucks etc uses electric power transmission anyway, it's a very mature technology. If implemented right, it should offer reduction in maintenance, take less space and use it in more rational manner. Allow doing away with APU, give an option to power all the energy weapons, probably act like an ersatz power generator for various equipment, etc. etc. There were some proposals for that like 10 -20 years ago, but nothing came to fruition, and all new AFVs are pure diesel/ hydraulics.

 

Hybrid is an interesting point somehow like with diesel-electric submarines. However, the issue with a hybrid vehicles is that they need somewhat more maintenance because you components of both concepts. So that may not be desirable in a military context.

[JonS]

5 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I would say that if the Russians are forced to employ existing underground parking lots as the backbone of their logistics plan, the UA is already winning. 

Apart from anything else, underground parking almost always has a really low roof, which would prevent log vehicles getting in and out, and even if you could you wouldn't be able.to use a forklift. You could still use it for storage but productivity would be pants, and vehicle loading/unloading would necessarily be outside.

A nice tunnel could work (nice high ceiling, set up to flow vehicles through, but kinda predictable) but again the topography of Ukraine seems to rule those out.

Edited July 10, 2022 by JonS

[Huba]

13 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Hybrid is an interesting point somehow like with diesel-electric submarines. However, the issue with a hybrid vehicles is that they need somewhat more maintenance because you components of both concepts. So that may not be desirable in a military context.

But you do away with all the hydraulics. And there's a lot of electrical stuff to maintain anyway, like turret rotating mechanism. Removing APU also lessens the maintenance a lot I think. 

We'll see how that Bradley that @OldSarge  brought up does, it is an interesting development that I was not aware of.

Edited July 10, 2022 by Huba

[Vanir Ausf B]

9 minutes ago, JonS said:

Apart from anything else, underground parking almost always has a really low roof, which would prevent log vehicles getting in and out

A serious problem for Russians.

 

[akd]

Seems there is a unit with T-90Ms (and possibly BMP-3s, as same reporter was riding one in a separate video from same day) on the Zaporizhzhia front now:

EDIT: he also uploaded a vid the same day with a T-62 in the background:

 

Edited July 10, 2022 by akd

[panzermartin]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

I own a parking garage company and here’s the thing with parking garages: they are built to a pretty defined standard globally and in Europe in particular, they are built on the lower end of that standard in terms of dimensions. So….they are *terrible* places to store things. They are not warehouses. First, they have low roof space. You can’t stack up a ton of ammo when the height limit is 9 feet (which is a generous estimate for older built garages) and trucks simply won’t fit inside most of them. Second, they are typically broken up by pillars/buttresses/etc to carry the weight of vehicles. It’s very hard to efficiently stack in them. Third, few have an actual loading dock attached so ingress/egress of supplies have to go via the normal vehicle entrance and then be lifted from the ground to the level of the truck bed. Fourth, it’s quite easy in an older garage to over stress them with weight. Artillery shells in bulk would be a nightmare…especially in some slapdash Soviet era Trabbie hutch. 

Finally, a single big shell at the egress point shuts them down entirely. They are specifically built to stop vehicle traffic from anywhere else. So…it would be just like the Russians to do it but it would be quite stupid to use parking garages.

 

Yes I thought garages could pose some practical problems in general. But if everything goes boom might be a desperate measure. 

Now I think I'm going to google the way Vietkong built all those  underground facilities that were immune to arty and air attacks. 

[poesel]

A Bradley weighs about 10x what a current Mercedes EQS does. The EQS has a range of 700+ kms so the electrical Bradley could go about 70 kms - in summer and on roads if it had wheels. The tracks will subtract even more range. So even if battery technology would double capacity you wouldn’t even be close to half the range the motor Bradley has (400kms).

I guess fossil fuels will stay for a while on the battlefield. Hybrid might be useful if you want to move silent and/or ‘cold’ for a short range.

Oh, and the current battery technology is especially unhappy wrt to penetrations. Not turret throwing unhappy but still fatal. However, that may change in the near future.

[Harmon Rabb]

An excellent reason to quit smoking .

Edited July 10, 2022 by Harmon Rabb

[Grigb]

HIMARS seem to struck some important RU HQs recently. RU propagandists experience acute HIMARS pain.

Quote

So, look, kind people. Ukrainian rocket launchers and artillery have already struck our decision-making centers several times. With the result. The centers are small, but important. I will not write where, when, how many, and who.
So as not to give out military secrets. Those who know, will understand: if the reporter Sladkov and his colleagues know, then many others know as well.

And my question is simple: when will this f*ck end?
Can you f*ck up the military-industrial complex, so that we finally have preventative "dryuchki things"?![Most likely he talks about GPS spoofing devices - RU Nats are discussing that GPS spoofing should help against GMLRS]

 

[Huba]

13 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Yes I thought garages could pose some practical problems in general. But if everything goes boom might be a desperate measure. 

Now I think I'm going to google the way Vietkong built all those  underground facilities that were immune to arty and air attacks. 

I'd think that VC built the bunkers with the assumption of USAF sometimes hitting the right grid square of jungle, not consistently dropping PGMs 5 meters from where they wanted  That changes everything, the only solution is to pour the concrete till you get sick of it.

Back to tanks. Rumors just broke that Poland will become the third biggest Abrams user in the world, after USA and Egypt. We ordered 250 brand new M1A2Sep3 last year, but to achieve this position we'd need at least 150 more. Now the talk is about at least 300 more (used ones, perhaps ex-USMC) for a total of 550 - 600. It means our 230 PT-91s will go to Ukraine, quite possibly the transfer is already ongoing. What is a fact is that first batch of M1s from US pre-positioned stockpile is already in Poland and our tankers are about to start training "in advance" to be ready to make a switch ASAP when equipment arrives.

What it means is that in the upcoming years, Poland will have around 600 M1s, and 250 Leo2 in our tank fleet. We are also about to buy license for K1A2 and start producing it locally. It will equip new brigades Poland intends to raise, and replace the Leo2 at some point. On top of tha,production of Borsuk (Badger) IFV to replace BMP-1 is starting this year, and as emergency we'll be buying an undisclosed number of AS-21 Redback (perhaps for armored, as opposed to mechanized brigades, this is unclear as of now). 

It is absolutely crazy, next 3 years will see more modernization of Polish army than last 3 decades...