How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Letter from Prague]

- delete -

Edited August 2, 2022 by Letter from Prague

[Huba]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Another example of Putin's brilliance at keeping NATO in check by attacking Ukraine:

 

It is in Poznań, my city, in an old Prussian army complex. It belongs to PL armed forces since, and is now located almost in the city center. What is funny is that US Army has some over-the-top security requirements compared to Polish - old fence was not enough, and they sandbagged the whole perimeter, put some concertina wire here and there and (most unfortunately) cut a number of street trees that were too close to the fence. And some concrete blocks, I assume to stop cars trying to ram the fence. The place now looks like a proper military compound (missing machine gun emplacements and Hesco wall) but it made many eyebrows to raise and provoked some snarky comments...

Edited August 2, 2022 by Huba

[Zeleban]

1 минуту назад, Хкроф сказал:

Разве этот очень длинный список не предполагает, что любая этническая группа, которая хочет отделиться, уже сделала это? Кроме некоторых апатридов на Кавказе, я действительно не понимаю, как вероятны какие-либо новые нации без внешней поддержки (имеется в виду Китай), но приобретение некоторых малонаселенных лесов на самом деле не компенсирует плохой пример этнических отколовшихся государств для них imo.

Well, yes, there are still Tatars, Bashkirs, Buryats, Udmurts, Tuvans. It must be understood that the supremacy of Moscow over these peoples is ensured by strong power. All the collapses of Russia, such as 1917 or 1991, occurred with the weakening of the organs of repression. As for the further collapse of Russia, one can recall 1994, when, following the example of Chechnya, there were active discussions about secession in Tatarstan, and separatist sentiments were always strong in Siberia and Buryatia. But after the war in Chechnya, where Russia demonstrated its readiness to shed the blood of the rebellious peoples, these discussions quickly subsided. But it is safe to say that they will undoubtedly arise again as soon as Russian power weakens.

[hcrof]

5 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Well, yes, there are still Tatars, Bashkirs, Buryats, Udmurts, Tuvans. It must be understood that the supremacy of Moscow over these peoples is ensured by strong power. All the collapses of Russia, such as 1917 or 1991, occurred with the weakening of the organs of repression. As for the further collapse of Russia, one can recall 1994, when, following the example of Chechnya, there were active discussions about secession in Tatarstan, and separatist sentiments were always strong in Siberia and Buryatia. But after the war in Chechnya, where Russia demonstrated its readiness to shed the blood of the rebellious peoples, these discussions quickly subsided. But it is safe to say that they will undoubtedly arise again as soon as Russian power weakens.

Thanks, I am not old enough to remember 1994 well, but looking at a map at both those locations suggests to me why they never left in the first place. Buryatia is a forest with less than 0.5m people in it and 1 major road, next to Irkutsk which is larger and has the infrastructure to be a military staging ground. Tartarstan is right in the middle of the Russian heartland and is not going anywhere in any scenario short of the apocalypse!

[FancyCat]

19 minutes ago, hcrof said:

Doesn't that very long list suggest that any ethnic group that wants to break away would have done so already? Other than some statelets in the Caucasus I really don't see how any new nations are likely without external backing (meaning China) but the gain of some sparsely populated forest doesn't really offset the bad example of ethnic breakaway states for them imo.

Siberia, holding most of existing and future Russian oil and gas production and massive reserves of other economically important minerals is "sparsely populated forest"?

[hcrof]

5 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Siberia, holding most of existing and future Russian oil and gas production and massive reserves of other economically important minerals is "sparsely populated forest"?

I have not seen anyone suggest that the whole of Siberia will form a unified political bloc that is capable of leaving the Russian federation. It's a very big place and those resources are scattered over very large areas: getting bits of Siberia is not very valuable - you need the whole lot.

[Zeleban]

3 minutes ago, hcrof said:

Спасибо, я недостаточно взрослый, чтобы хорошо помнить 1994 год, но глядя на карту обоих этих мест, я понимаю, почему они вообще никогда не уезжали. Бурятия — это лес, в котором проживает менее 0,5 млн человек, и есть 1 крупная дорога, расположенная рядом с Иркутском, который крупнее и имеет инфраструктуру, позволяющую стать военным плацдармом. Татарстан находится прямо в центре России и никуда не денется ни при каком сценарии, кроме апокалипсиса!

The fact of the matter is that if Moscow does not suppress the first manifestation of separatism with blood, a chain reaction will occur in which various territories will begin to announce their secession from Russia. In this case, there will be no interior areas. Almost every region will be a separate seething cauldron. For example, in 1990, the Baltic countries announced their secession from the USSR, and already in 1991, Ukraine and Belarus announced this, although in these countries there were no strong separatist sentiments, unlike the Baltic states.

[Huba]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

ISW continues to report on units withdrawing from Izyum and being redeployed to Kherson and the south.  I have a feeling that many of the "30" that Arestovych is talking about are these much diminished BTGs.  Some are probably hastily raised volunteer battalions, and the rest are likely fantasy by Arestovych to make the situation sound more concerning than it is.

I get the feeling that Ukraine is now deliberately baiting the Russians into putting forces onto the western side of the river before completely cutting Kherson off from Russian supply.  We all know what they can do because they did it very easily.  They definitely can do it again, despite losing HIRAMS launchers hiding on the 2nd floor of a building in Kharkiv

Steve

There's now a full translation of the Arestovych talk by Wartranslated. I quote the interesting part below:

Quote

Kherson:
3 armies (about 30 BTGs) deployed, command posts on both sides. Right bank about 22-25 BTGs. plans offensive on Kryvyi Rih and Mykolaiv. Citizens should not worry, forces are not battle-ready – inflated personnel, many missing, low morale and bad equipment.

objective is to prepare until 6th of August, but offensive could be delayed. Expecting to advance in 2 opposing directions, and get stopped. It would be more complicated, if would choose not to attack, and only defend.

has enough forces to stop . Enough weapons to stop offensive, and create conditions for offensive. Yesterday train with 40 carts was destroyed. has specific intent, the more arrives there, the better.

Missiles:
4 more M142 HIMARS, MARS II MLRS.
next aid package contains of missiles and artillery ammo.
has obtained anti-radar missiles for aircraft.
ATACMS missiles with range of 300km promised
It would be nice to have all weapons in double amount. Currently can launch 168 missiles in single volley. There are 200 operational level targets

Missiles could be intercepted by Tor air defense system, but they have limited range and can’t be deployed everywhere. is also using tricks to overcome such defenses.
This is cat and mouse game, both sides changing methods, trying to guess other side methods. Possibly some have been intercepted, but that is very complicated task.

So indeed it looks like some crazy dictatorial wish that RU army is trying to fullfil, as @danfrodo suggested. 

[Grigb]

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Thanks again for mapping this stuff.

What I see from this is about a half dozen points of effort that are each fairly small in scale.  As one of your translations stated, Russia continues to use BTGs as if they are just larger companies.  Even the Russian BTG doctrine isn't followed, not to mention the Western "battle group" concept that it was based on.

Yes, this is what i see as well. Also, here are a few of my observations on how fighting is happening based on RU sources:

• Any concentrations are hit hard with drone adjusted arty. So, offensive actions tend to be smaller in scale, short and sharp from one place with cover to another (it could be settlement or enemy defensive position). 
• Troops are already adjusted to this - as soon as ground taken everybody runs to various covers (One of the reasons fighting evolves around settlements is because in the settlements there are a lot of cellars and concealment from drone observation. For example, UKR observation posts are in cellars with cameras on the rooftops [something to add to BS2]). So, losses of troops are lots smaller, but as soon as drones arrive no offensive movement is possible.
• BTW looks like classic W2 one-two men slit trench is back to fashion (late cold war four man slit trench is good target for 120mm mortar). When there is no cover both sides dig them first to have at least something.
• Seems NATO arty and mortars need to have a few bunker buster shells - mix of normal HE with delay (to explode inside of houses) with cellar busters (to force enemy on fresh air) and air burst shells (clear out slit trenches) is what is required. Need to add that according to RU statements they prefer urban warfare as urban underground is much stronger than cellars and allows direct movement between houses.    
• There is a huge lack of infantry on RU side (LDNR). Their battalions are half the size of TOE ones. I believe UKR are trying to minimize the size of forward troops as well. 
• So, major part of fighting is finding (with drones if possible) enemy positions and terrorizing them with arty until the enemy leaves and own side recon party enters it then everybody else follows (and runs for cover). Because UKR are doing the same it is called playing arty ping pong. 
• I would like to stress the need for platoon sized and even squad sized drone counters (as I said EW rifles are unreliable nuisance at best). As soon as NATO infantry can reliably counter drones at ranges at least 500 meters (better 1 km and ideally 2 km) any RU forces will pack and leave. They are literally blind without drones and do not have enough infantry to fight the usual RU way.
• Due to the factors above the most successful offensive RU tactic is the following. While drone operator terrorizes UKR positions RU assault groups (more like beefed up recon parties) try to infiltrate to get as close to UKR position as possible. Once position is weakened/suppressed with close hits RU assault groups overruns the position. As per my belief due to deliberate tactic UKR forward troops do not try to hold position that being overrun and pull back immediately. RU usually do not discuss what happens next, but I believe UKR are getting drones and their assault groups in place to either counterattack in the same way or fix RU in place with arty. 
• Obviously, it is slow (sometimes very slow). On other hand with superiority in number of tubes and shells it allows RU to grind through UKR defense with acceptable losses. I do agree with Girkin they will grind eventually through given enough ammo and modest supply of men. Whether they have them is a different matter. Also, RU is grinding UKR forward positions, after that they will need to fight UKR main forces in street battles.

 

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

In the fighting today we saw the usual pattern of shelling and/or recon in the morning, followed by ground attacks and/or artillery only strikes, ending with losses and not much terrain taken.  The conflicting reports from Ukrainian government and Russian nationalist sources usually boil down to both agreeing an attack took place, but Ukraine saying it was defeated and Russia saying it took a limited amount of terrain.  It seems that in many cases both are correct simultaneously.

Yes, this is what I want to comment. Both sides' statements are confusing but mainly are correct indeed simultaneously.  It is like this:

Let's say we have UKR defense position in Hoof settlement. RU side makes a major attack trying to overrun the settlement.  UKR stops it cold at outskirts.

• UKR side states: RU attacked but we beat them off
• RU normal propagandists state: Victory we captured outskirts of Hoof!
• RU dumb propagandists state: Complete Victory, Hoof is ours!
• Arestovich: RU has suffered humiliating defeat and UKR are pursuing retreating RU

Next day: RU attempts major attack to capture rest of settlement. But UKR beat them off again and so, RU pulls back to the outskirts (not out of settlement). 

• UKR side states: RU attacked but we beat them off. RU retreated
• RU normal propagandists state: we are hacking through UKR defenses.
• RU dumb propagandists state: Now for something completely different - NATO ATACKING KOSOVO! SAVE SLAVIC BROTHERS FROM NATO! 
• Arestovich: I did not mean UKR side pursuing RU till Kremlin. And anyway, UKR were perusing RU. Somewhere. [Yes, I am not a big fan of Arestovich]
• UKR public [reading UKR and RU statements] WTF is going on? Was RU attack successful or not? Were they beaten off and retreated out of settlement? If so, why are they making videos from the outskirts? [Write angry rant that UKR government is absolutely corrupt and incompetent.] 
• Me putting both statements on map: Make sense - here RU pushed and here UKR stopped them cold. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Grigb

[Grigb]

49 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

I'm curious why Russia didn't intervene at all in the Karabach if this was a national security issue. It was another sign of increasing weakness? 

Sort of. Swift defeats inflicted upon RU prepared ARM armed forces made RU extremely caution of AZER forces prepared by Turkey. It was so unexpected that I believe Ru high command was frozen for some time. Given their eyes were already set on UKR they preferred to stay away and not to embroil in conflict where their humiliation was possible.

[The_Capt]

6 hours ago, danfrodo said:

wars start for reasons.  But once started they continue for the sake of the war itself, the reasons nearly immediately forgotten.

Now everyone is beating up on Clausewitz.

[panzermartin]

55 minutes ago, Grigb said:

Sort of. Swift defeats inflicted upon RU prepared ARM armed forces made RU extremely caution of AZER forces prepared by Turkey. It was so unexpected that I believe Ru high command was frozen for some time. Given their eyes were already set on UKR they preferred to stay away and not to embroil in conflict where their humiliation was possible.

I see, that explains some things. But there can been also part 2 in this. Turkey is also on a crucial turning make or break point in its history that will affect support in these regions. 

[Maciej Zwolinski]

2 hours ago, Grigb said:

• Any concentrations are hit hard with drone adjusted arty. So, offensive actions tend to be smaller in scale, short and sharp from one place with cover to another (it could be settlement or enemy defensive position). 
• Troops are already adjusted to this - as soon as ground taken everybody runs to various covers (One of the reasons fighting evolves around settlements is because in the settlements there are a lot of cellars and concealment from drone observation. For example, UKR observation posts are in cellars with cameras on the rooftops [something to add to BS2]). So, losses of troops are lots smaller, but as soon as drones arrive no offensive movement is possible.

This is incredible. Reads like a scene from the future in "Terminator" where  the human guerillas have a few minutes to strike and then hide before the killing machines arrive. Fighting like this could indeed reduce any offensive action to a modern equivalent of WWI trench raid, and if both sides do this to each other, then they are just fighting back and forth over the same small pieces of terrain. Has anyone proposed a way to break this stalemate?

The only thing that comes to my mind in that situation is a massive air bombardment of the enemy artillery and having a ton of PGMs on call to immediately respond to any artillery which survived the air strikes and reveals itself in defensive fires.

One more thought: are AFVs used (and/or useful) at all in this kind of fighting?

 

[womble]

1 minute ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Has anyone proposed a way to break this stalemate?

"Better artillery". If your counterbattery assets can sit outside your opponent's offensive fire envelope and your detection and direction if their fires is fast enough, you can suppress their artillery, eventually (or very quickly, if you have lots of CB available. To some extent it's what UKR is starting to be able to do comprehensively with the advent of the NATO 155 SPGs and their excellent domestically-developed distributed fire control system. The new tubes outrange most (if not all, given the right ammo) of the RU artillery, and can hit RU guns before they can displace, often. At the moment, the destruction of the supply chain is having more effect, but when you get to the tactical level (where batteries trying to shoot at an attacking concentration would only be able to use their on-hand rounds anyway), the effect will only grow as NATO sends more tubes for UKR to deploy.

The other way round, it looks like UKR's assets are potent enough to shatter or at least stall some attacking  concentrations and agile enough to displace before RU counterbattery can be brought to bear. 

[Huba]

7 minutes ago, womble said:

"Better artillery". If your counterbattery assets can sit outside your opponent's offensive fire envelope and your detection and direction if their fires is fast enough, you can suppress their artillery, eventually (or very quickly, if you have lots of CB available. To some extent it's what UKR is starting to be able to do comprehensively with the advent of the NATO 155 SPGs and their excellent domestically-developed distributed fire control system. The new tubes outrange most (if not all, given the right ammo) of the RU artillery, and can hit RU guns before they can displace, often. At the moment, the destruction of the supply chain is having more effect, but when you get to the tactical level (where batteries trying to shoot at an attacking concentration would only be able to use their on-hand rounds anyway), the effect will only grow as NATO sends more tubes for UKR to deploy.

The other way round, it looks like UKR's assets are potent enough to shatter or at least stall some attacking  concentrations and agile enough to displace before RU counterbattery can be brought to bear. 

Add to that (relatively) massed use of PGMs, both 155mm and MLRS launched. Doing effective CB with 3 rounds fired from 35+ km. I'd think that ISR is the main bottleneck here - but if that is solved if UA will commit to achieving local dominance, I think they already have firepower to do so.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Huba

[The_Capt]

47 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

This is incredible. Reads like a scene from the future in "Terminator" where  the human guerillas have a few minutes to strike and then hide before the killing machines arrive. Fighting like this could indeed reduce any offensive action to a modern equivalent of WWI trench raid, and if both sides do this to each other, then they are just fighting back and forth over the same small pieces of terrain. Has anyone proposed a way to break this stalemate?

The only thing that comes to my mind in that situation is a massive air bombardment of the enemy artillery and having a ton of PGMs on call to immediately respond to any artillery which survived the air strikes and reveals itself in defensive fires.

One more thought: are AFVs used (and/or useful) at all in this kind of fighting?

 

Massed precision beats everything.

We have been seeing precision deep-strike as manoeuvre in this war and it is likely how to break the deadlock.  Once a side can 1) establish information superiority and learning superiority, 2) link that to mass precision deep strike capability and 3) integrate an infiltration-isolation-destruction cycle - the other side is in serious trouble.  The UA appears to have #1.  Is working on #2, and we have yet to really see #3 but it was employed by the UA on the defensive in Phase 1.

Another concept to consider with respect to #3 - https://theconversation.com/john-keats-concept-of-negative-capability-or-sitting-in-uncertainty-is-needed-now-more-than-ever-153617

 “being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.”

A military negative capability does not seek to impose order, it instead employs chaos as a means. This also follows the trend that this is a war of denial-to-attrition-to-decision.  In order to do #3 a level of negative capability, which again we saw in the dispersed self-synchronized light infantry actions in phase one holds promise.  The trick will be setting pre-conditions to enable it.

And people were all worried about tanks….

[chuckdyke]

10 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

And people were all worried about tanks….

The T72 like the name says was introduced around 1972. It is like starting WW2 with the Renault FT-17. It is worse 50-year-old tanks. There were no surprises for the Ukrainians and it was eight years well spent. The big game changer seem to be artillery with GPS based fuses. A revolution as dramatic as the proximity fuse was. This war includes near space and nano technlogy. 

[poesel]

1 hour ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Has anyone proposed a way to break this stalemate?

I guess this is like the WWI assessment of 'the bomber always gets through' - now with drones.

The next near-pear war will have massive drone vs. drone battles to gain air supremacy. Recce-by-drone is now such a massive and obvious advantage that it will be fought over next time.

[Huba]

26 minutes ago, poesel said:

I guess this is like the WWI assessment of 'the bomber always gets through' - now with drones.

The next near-pear war will have massive drone vs. drone battles to gain air supremacy. Recce-by-drone is now such a massive and obvious advantage that it will be fought over next time.

I was reading up on air defense a little bit lately, and given the current/ next decade state of technology, I'm rather skeptical regarding the drone on drone combat, in the near future at least.  Thing is that to have anything at least a bit capable in air to air, and able to prosecute missions independently (meaning acquiring and attacking airborne targets) you are looking at pretty large craft. Something the size of TB-2 is probable the smallest that could carry sufficient payload. There are interesting programs like the "Loyal Wingman", but that is for the theater type craft, to work in conjunction with manned craft.

My point here is that recconaisance/ ground attack drones are so much easier to miniaturize than something that could resemble a fighter aircraft. Of course you could use small kamikaze drones, that are at least to a degree guided externally, but that is already here and it's called a SAM.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Huba

[Grigb]

Morning map time (I know I am a bit late, but have to deal with you know this thing called life outside). Keep in mind that the Morning map is not about what is happening right now. 

I am removing settlements that became inactive and add where offensive action occurs. 

Notes:

• For a second day I see a significant decrease in RU Nats interest in offensive. So, not many updates from RU side (yes, it is good indication that UKR resistance is much stronger than RU expected).
• Today I marked the first settlement Pokrovske as lost. Have no info but Deep State mark it as lost between 30 and 31. Still, I believe UKR are contesting the area as RU made airstrikes there (not that I care much - holding settlements just to hold them is not a wise tactics) 

[Haiduk]

2 minutes ago, Grigb said:

Morning map time (I know I am a bit late, but have to deal with you know this thing called life outside). Keep in mind that the Morning map is not about what is happening right now.

In UKR twitter is spreading rumors that Pisky lost. Yesterday there was info from our serviceman about UKR counter-attacks in Pisky and Maryinka and mopping-up in contested areas. He also confirmed DPR forces seized "Butivka" position. 

Though DPR propaganda just showed today heavy shellings of Pisky, so situation still unclear

[Grigb]

17 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

In UKR twitter is spreading rumors that Pisky lost. Yesterday there was info from our serviceman about UKR counter-attacks in Pisky and Maryinka and mopping-up in contested areas. He also confirmed DPR forces seized "Butivka" position. 

Though DPR propaganda just showed today heavy shellings of Pisky, so situation still unclear

I see RU Nats avoid discussion of Pisky. All they discuss is Butivka capture. NM DNR just posted video saying they captured it and moved little bit further. Also, yesterday at night Tatarsky said information about capture in Pesky of Bolshoi Myraveink defensive position is not confirmed. I am considering Pisky so far at least contested. 

[UPDATE] Girkin says 

Quote

The Pisky were liberated by about 65%, mainly due to the precise and massive work of artillery. CLAIM Many trophies and prisoners were taken.

 

Maryinka is proclaimed to be almost captured. But also, do not see discussions about it. Waiting. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Grigb

[Grigb]

New Girkin assessment from VK

Quote

The Pisky were liberated by about 65%, mainly due to the precise and massive work of artillery. Many trophies and prisoners were taken.

On the Kherson front, the enemy is gradually expanding and strengthening the captured bridgehead in the area of the villages of Andreevka and Lozove.

[UPDATE] RU Nats are also avoiding discussing UKR Inhulets bridgehead. RU immediate counterattacks most likely failed.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Grigb

[Huba]

Just now, Grigb said:

Quote

The Pisky were liberated by about 65%, mainly due to the precise and massive work of artillery. Many trophies and prisoners were taken.

On the Kherson front, the enemy is gradually expanding and strengthening the captured bridgehead in the area of the villages of Andreevka and Lozove.

 

They have to switch to square meters at some point to better describe the successes xD What is more telling IMO is that RU didn't yet managed to counterattack and reduce this bridgehead. Depending whom you believe, the Davidyv Brid ("David's ford", right?) was pushed at and destroyed almost immediately, while here it seems UA is having an upper hand, and it is a critically important spot.

[Grigb]

2 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

This is incredible. Reads like a scene from the future in "Terminator" where  the human guerillas have a few minutes to strike and then hide before the killing machines arrive. Fighting like this could indeed reduce any offensive action to a modern equivalent of WWI trench raid, and if both sides do this to each other, then they are just fighting back and forth over the same small pieces of terrain. Has anyone proposed a way to break this stalemate?

Drones are cheap. But that means they have cheap cameras (they are good but at certain distance). So, cheap drones operate at a distance starting from of a few meters (yes, sometimes the literally check what is at objective, for example for IEDs or for ambushes by lone machine gunners) to 500 meters from target. For longer ranges you need bigger, more expensive drones (they are common as well). They can operate at longer distances from target but with their optics observation suffers.

Due to lack of effective counters the drones can approach to a distance where no stealth help (literally can sit above you). Push them away (500 meters for cheat, 1 km or better for more expensive ones) or force them to observe only for a limited amount of time and camo skills, clothes and camo equipment open way to use bigger (relatively) masses of infantry and move them faster (relatively).

Current vehicles are another very different story. But I believe to discuss it I will need to write bigger post than I have time now. 

2 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

The only thing that comes to my mind in that situation is a massive air bombardment of the enemy artillery and having a ton of PGMs on call to immediately respond to any artillery which survived the air strikes and reveals itself in defensive fires.

It puts special emphasis on CB, yes. I believe in smaller GMLRS on smaller wheeled chassis (pickup) linked to mobile CB radar. During Arty ping pong guns usually stay at longest range (to increase chances to survive CB) so, it takes time to walk arty to target (well, I am talking about RU arty). 

So, as soon as enemy arty starts ping pong it gets mini-GMLS in da face. The only thing it might require some active head to precisely lock on gun.

 

2 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

One more thought: are AFVs used (and/or useful) at all in this kind of fighting?

There is no simple straight answer. They are extremely vulnerable. On other hand Ping Ponging is long range affair outside of small arms range. You know the enemy is at the next tree line like 600-800 meters away (drone sees them), arty is incoming but it takes time to adjust it and there is time between volleys enemy uses to move.  So, you get BTR with 30mm and brrrr tree line to force enemy down right under incoming arty. The same is with settlements assault: enemy suddenly opens up from hidden position - spray him with 30mm until shells arrive. And the thing is a tank is expensive and RU tank is the mobile crematorium. BTR with external 30mm is much cheaper, burn less and much faster.