How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[danfrodo]

2 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

I wonder if it's so unbalanced. A defense in this kind of environment would need to be extremely jelly-like,  able to fire,  zip away to hide,  then fire again, moving backwards/forwards/laterally. The trouble with defence is that you're defending something,  usually an area, making you a target than can be id' to a general location then that targeting refined to find you. 

Defence itself might shift in form.to a smart formation with an amorphous, diffuse border zone (not edge) that is thickened in response to attack and can flow/defend forwards. Determining who is attacking/defending could be very hard to know for a while. 

This whole discussion is confusing to me.  I thought we were in a war where UKR has to overcome WW1 style dug in cannon fodder backed up by ATGMs, arty, IFVs and tanks.  Yeah, RU has drones, but the actual fight to regain territory is not all that high tech.  UKR needs to suppress and overrun fortified positions.  Lots of positions maybe would be abandoned once outflanked, but UKR still needs to actually fight to gain lots of them.  And for that they need enough Mobile Protected Firepower to locally overwhelm the enemy.  Hence UKR has been screaming for months for more tanks & IFVs.  UKR will lose lots of AFVs in these fights, so needs lots to start out with.  

Drones, ISR, etc, are super critical to gaining the advantage but sooner or later someone actually has to take positions against armed opposition.  

[The_Capt]

6 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

I wonder if it's so unbalanced. A defense in this kind of environment would need to be extremely jelly-like,  able to fire,  zip away to hide,  then fire again, moving backwards/forwards/laterally. The trouble with defence is that you're defending something,  usually an area, making you a target than can be id' to a general location then that targeting refined to find you. 

Defence itself might shift in form.to a smart formation with an amorphous, diffuse border zone (not edge) that is thickened in response to attack and can flow/defend forwards. Determining who is attacking/defending could be very hard to know for a while. 

That is really a good point.  We just saw a video where digging in a static location = dead.  As things progress is digging in an option or does one have to constantly be on the move?  Of course moving heightens visibility. I think someone mentioned cloud-like warfare and I think that definitely is worth exploring.  Offence and defence might not mean anything until one side breaks.

I honestly do not know, we are off the map here.  In these situations emergent behaviour with under Darwinian pressure tends to be how things evolve.  The UA is trying a lot of stuff and clearly some of it is working.  Now applying the right method to the right situation is going to be the really tricky part.

[Haiduk]

22 hours ago, Huba said:

Was there any photo evidence accompanying this statement? I was discussing this with somebody,  it would be really useful. 

No photo alas, but today Air Force Command officially claimed all 10 missiles, which hit Kyiv, Kyiv and Chernihiv oblasts were launched from S-400, deployed in Briansk oblast.

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

This whole discussion is confusing to me.  I thought we were in a war where UKR has to overcome WW1 style dug in cannon fodder backed up by ATGMs, arty, IFVs and tanks.  Yeah, RU has drones, but the actual fight to regain territory is not all that high tech.  UKR needs to suppress and overrun fortified positions.  Lots of positions maybe would be abandoned once outflanked, but UKR still needs to actually fight to gain lots of them.  And for that they need enough Mobile Protected Firepower to locally overwhelm the enemy.  Hence UKR has been screaming for months for more tanks & IFVs.  UKR will lose lots of AFVs in these fights, so needs lots to start out with.  

Drones, ISR, etc, are super critical to gaining the advantage but sooner or later someone actually has to take positions against armed opposition.  

Well except for the fact that the war you describe has not actually happened in this conflict.  We had a hybrid defensive screen that cut a massive heavy advantage to pieces in Phase I, we saw the RA try what you are describing in Phase II and fail, we then saw forms of corrosive warfare in Phase III where after a level of erosion the RA buckled or simply left.

So gotta be honest not sure why everyone thinks this is a “break through the trenches problem”, at least not yet.  Right now it is infiltrate, isolate and  eliminate - rinse and repeat, while fending off the other guy.  Any armoured build up and charges on either side are going to lack all elements of surprise, which is essential.  Further the RA while definitely on the poopy end of this stick, still has a lot of anti-vehicle weapon systems and artillery that bites so premature assaults could very well end up in disaster.

And then there is precision strike.  Keep hitting the RA on critical nodes and connectors at ranges they cannot deal with until they cannot sustain themselves. Then try for the break out assault, if the enemy has not simply left by then.   

I suspect that we will finally see a more conventional warfare break through but it will be the result of, not the cause of, RA collapse.  

[NamEndedAllen]

6 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

Also I think you underestimate role US played in creating and extending European Union. It was not small, and from perspective of time we see the benefits of it, even from Germany perspective- Europe is more stable, Western companies had access to cheap labour, over course of time continent welfare is better distributed, and Western states have a proper buffer zone against Russia we are now seeing at work. Imagine the continent when EU and NATO did not extended...3-4 times more flashpoints on the map.

It’s easy to forget the USA fundamental bipartisan European foreign policy that emerged after seeing much of the world engulfed in massive and horrendous war in the 20th Century. Not to mention the Continent’s history of lengthy and expensive wars. The USA bipartisan policy has been to prevent any single European nation dominating the Continent, ever again. Except for the rupture during 2016 - 2020. Winning or losing other issues matter much less, so long as no one Continental nation militarily dominates. And the German-French relationship doesn’t turn deadly. This, despite however loud (and often justified) the heckling of domestic political columnists and opinion writers at every juncture. Yes the benefits have been uneven. Yes, policies are often clumsy. Yes, it’s all been far from perfect. But in this instance, the idea of the Perfect has not driven out the somewhat disheveled reality of the Good. 
 

Perhaps this war will be the impetus to forge much better policies, relations, and understandings for the benefits of the millions of everyday folks in all our countries

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Well except for the fact that the war you describe has not actually happened in this conflict.  We had a hybrid defensive screen that cut a massive heavy advantage to pieces in Phase I, we saw the RA try what you are describing in Phase II and fail, we then saw forms of corrosive warfare in Phase III where after a level of erosion the RA buckled or simply left.

So gotta be honest not sure why everyone thinks this is a “break through the trenches problem”, at least not yet.  Right now it is infiltrate, isolate and  eliminate - rinse and repeat, while fending off the other guy.  Any armoured build up and charges on either side are going to lack all elements of surprise, which is essential.  Further the RA while definitely on the poopy end of this stick, still has a lot of anti-vehicle weapon systems and artillery that bites so premature assaults could very well end up in disaster.

And then there is precision strike.  Keep hitting the RA on critical nodes and connectors at ranges they cannot deal with until they cannot sustain themselves. Then try for the break out assault, if the enemy has not simply left by then.   

I suspect that we will finally see a more conventional warfare break through but it will be the result of, not the cause of, RA collapse.  

Totally agree w everything you said, The_Capt.  All I was trying to say was that UKR still needs the firepower to get past strongpoints -- UKR won't always be able to infiltrate it's way forward.  It will often have to fight through some stiff location before it will have infiltration opportunities.  I am not talking of bum rush w mass armor & men.  I am just talking about getting fire superiority to overcome some local, dug in defense.  And UKR will lose AFVs doing this so needs lots of replacements.  Doing this w MRAPS, HUMMVs & M113s sucks.  Precision will definitely help, but it might not be enough to allow a free walk onto the objectives.  Some of those RU guys might survive and fire back.

So I am agreeing that corrosive is what will happen but there will still be nasty fights, especially in bottleneck areas that both sides know are necessary for advance.

I am seeing this as a .AND. not a .OR. discussion (going some old school fortran there)

Edited January 17, 2023 by danfrodo
addition

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, danfrodo said:

This whole discussion is confusing to me.  I thought we were in a war where UKR has to overcome WW1 style dug in cannon fodder backed up by ATGMs, arty, IFVs and tanks.  Yeah, RU has drones, but the actual fight to regain territory is not all that high tech.  UKR needs to suppress and overrun fortified positions.  Lots of positions maybe would be abandoned once outflanked, but UKR still needs to actually fight to gain lots of them.  And for that they need enough Mobile Protected Firepower to locally overwhelm the enemy.  Hence UKR has been screaming for months for more tanks & IFVs.  UKR will lose lots of AFVs in these fights, so needs lots to start out with.  

Drones, ISR, etc, are super critical to gaining the advantage but sooner or later someone actually has to take positions against armed opposition.  

 

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

That is really a good point.  We just saw a video where digging in a static location = dead.  As things progress is digging in an option or does one have to constantly be on the move?  Of course moving heightens visibility. I think someone mentioned cloud-like warfare and I think that definitely is worth exploring.  Offence and defence might not mean anything until one side breaks.

I honestly do not know, we are off the map here.  In these situations emergent behaviour with under Darwinian pressure tends to be how things evolve.  The UA is trying a lot of stuff and clearly some of it is working.  Now applying the right method to the right situation is going to be the really tricky part.

Russia has huge holes in its tech stack/ISR/targeting management. Ukraine has limitations on its truly deep targeting imposed by NATO. This is a weird asymmetry that is unlikely to reoccur in exactly this way. Also the next war is probably going to include VASTLY more drones built specifically for military use. The next war, whenever, and wherever that is is, going to have different set of asymmetries .

[danfrodo]

Just now, dan/california said:

 

Russia has huge holes in its tech stack/ISR/targeting management. Ukraine has limitations on its truly deep targeting imposed by NATO. This is a weird asymmetry that is unlikely to reoccur in exactly this way. Also the next war is probably going to include VASTLY more drones built specifically for military use. The next war, whenever, and wherever that is is, going to have different set of asymmetries .

well said, DanCA.  I am not looking super far forward.  I am just looking at how UKR can get its land back.  I want the whole land bridge.  I want to reach Starobilsk -- be fun to see them supply their cannon fodder if that happens.  That's my minimum.  So I am just fixated on what it will take for UKR to achieve the above items and I think that lots of better AFVs are a big part of it (along w all the other goodies) -- oddly enough, UKR military & Zelensky seem to agree.  

[holoween]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Matches a lot of what we have been seeing and reading about:

 This is part of the problem with Russian tactics. Tanks in groups are vulnerable, but as singles or duos with no direct support they are almost assuredly dead.

The NLAW is crazy effective, light, easy to use, pretty cheap, and will kill most anything on the battlefield. We like them because we can launch them in trees without creating wood shrapnel from the back blast. With the NLAW, I can take a guy with no AT experience at all, and in less than an hour he will be deadly to vehicles, including main battle tanks.

The counters are problematic -

As this weapon type get smaller, lighter, less expensive and more wide-spread, even down to the small team level, this will pose a real problem for vehicles in contested areas. The counter to it I suppose is support, air, troops and drones, so you can push the weapons out of range. I am no grand strategist nor a a tactical wizard, but, based on what I am seeing, This is something that seems – like drones – game changing to some degree.

 

Ill make the case that the power of at weapons is overstated mostly due to bad tactics and a tech disparity.

Quote

This is part of the problem with Russian tactics. Tanks in groups are vulnerable, but as singles or duos with no direct support they are almost assuredly dead.

we found they had no other armor support in the area, and no infantry for perimeter defense

We moved within 100 meters staying in the tree line, and whacked it with an NLAW

We know since WW1 that tanks or rather generally AFVs are vulnerable in low numbers. And at the latest since WW2 we know that you have to protect tanks with infantry from close range at. It seems however that the russians have unlearned these lessons.

This experience report seems to suggest this and this video equally seems to confirm this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpx7TWc58PI And in general ive not seen any good infantry armour combined arms from the russian side.

The ukrainians seem to do this much better and id argue that this on its own massively contributes to the loss disparity between russian and ukrainian afvs.

 

There is also a massive disparity between most russian afvs and western afvs that is hard to overstate: thermals.

Take the video ive linked and imagine just replacing the bmp2 with any modern western ifv. Once the mobility kill happens (even NLAW isnt perfect) youd have 2 independently swung thermal imagers searching for them. And given they were in line of sight and repeatedly firing from the same position for 10min just 350m away even with 2nd gen thermal imagers they would have been spotted.

If we now pair this with proper AFV tactics so no continuous fighting from the same position, supporting infantry, a seconf IFV to support, and maybe some squad or platoon level spotting drones overhead this entire situation suddenly becomes practically impossible for the infantry. And if you add an active protection system they are screwed either way.

 

 

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

 

Two major issues are 1) Range, and 2) Visibility Asymmetry.

1.  NLAW is good out to 1000m.  That is pretty far, but maybe doable to sweep out with UAVs etc.  NLAW 2.0 or other systems can reach out to well past 3000m (some Spike systems can reach out 10s of kms).  Once you extend to that range the amount of area in the threat circle around the tank get insanely high - 1000m = roughly 3.14 million sq meters to "sweep".  2500 m = 19.6 million sq ms.  10,000m = 314 million sq ms.  UAS/UGV everywhere, multi-spectral automated systems.  I am not sure how we are going to do it to be honest.

This has some quite significant caveats.

1. unless you have lock on after launch capability youre still limited to los engagements and that dramatically lowers the area a vehicle has to keep track of. It also means to engage the vehicle you have to be in los to the vehicle itself putting you at potential risk. That risk is quite low if youre 1000m away in complex terrain shooting at a single t72 but it becomes much higher if its a platoon of modern mbts. 8 high qualits thermal imagers scanning for you have a quite good chance spotting you even at distance.

2. And if you use lock after launch missiles you can keep yourself safe but still need something to tell you where the tank is. And especially if used at longer ranges its time of flight is significant enough that its better compared to organically called precision artillery.

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

2.  A large hot 60t peice of metal is orders of magnitude easier to find and fix, via many means, than two guys hiding in a ditch/bush/culvert.  So in the competition to "see first, shoot first" the tank is at a serious disadvantage.  In facr one can see the tank-system (i.e. logistics) from space, which is its own problem.

A tank is definitely easier to find than an infantryman but both can be found and the ammount of drone footage of arty destroying infantry directed by drones is proof of that. A tank however is far more difficult to actually fix in place once spotted compared to infantry.

 

And this leads to The main reason why AFVs are unlikely to ever go away: As demonstrated in this war to gain grund you have to take it from the enemy and to hold it you have to defend it with infantry. No matter the firepower be it precision in cae of the ukrainians or mass in case of the russians can clear an objective. It has to be taken and cleared by infantry.

And once you have to take ground you have to be exposed and you will be detected and you will be shot at. And infantry is vulnerable to literally everything on a battlefield and it cant move at any significant speed on its own. So With drones everywhere the infantry is likely to be spotted and shot to pieces before they can even reach the jumpoff point for an attack or at the latest once the attack actually happens.

Try intercepting this with arty:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw8RDpS1uOE

 If AFVs were truely obsolete Ukraine wouldnt ask for hundreds of tanks and ifvs to enable them to attack.

 

[cyrano01]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

We have been caught here before.  In fact it drove the operationalization of the tank itself.  My guess is that UGVs may be the game changer, but I am still not sure in which direction.

We have, indeed, been here before. Although the newly developed tanks and nascent air-power certainly helped it was more sophisticated and co-ordianted use of existing assets, infantry and artillery, that underpinned the ability to break into  defensive positions in 1917-18. That and the preceding three or four years of grinding attrition to reduce enemy staying power, oh yeah and a blockade to starve the population.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, danfrodo said:

So I am agreeing that corrosive is what will happen but there will still be nasty fights, especially in bottleneck areas that both sides know are necessary for advance.

I am seeing this as a .AND. not a .OR. discussion (going some old school fortran there)

Fair points but western Will is not infinite and the pipeline is limited.  There will be nasty hard fights, but let’s remember that the UA is still pretty well armed in the tank/AFV department.  My thinking is that so long as we prioritize:

C4ISR - from space to UAS, to battlefield radars to whatever.  Integrated and networked backed up by US/western architecture.  And this stuff is not cheap by the way.

Fires.  Tubes, missiles, mortars and loitering munitions.  As much as we can possibly put in their hands.  Why?  To do what needs to be done in corrosive warfare - accelerated precision attrition.  If someone said we had $10M and the choice was a Leo 2 (with all the support) or 50 Spike NLOS, I would take the missiles at this point.  Guns, so many guns and ammo, drowned them in ammo and as much PGM as we can come up.  HIMARs double whatever they have.

Infantry.  Once again the dog faced human on the ground is a critical part of winning this war…that much has not changed.  Anything and everything that can 1) make infantry better and 2) make more trained infantry.

Once we got all that in the bag (and it is not there yet), then start sending the heavy stuff in complete unit packages.  So don’t send 10 Challengers, send a combat team built around the Challenger.  This includes logistics and engineering.  No point in talking about “hard points” unless we are talking assault engineering - MCLCs, AEVs, armoured bridges and the flip side, mine warfare equipment to fix an opponent in place once isolated.

You wanna win?  Focus on finding, fixing and killing Russians right now, and then build in the later stuff for the finishing battles deliberately like professionals.  If we can do both, great.  But I suspect we will have to prioritize and phase in.

[Beleg85]

1 hour ago, holoween said:

We know since WW1 that tanks or rather generally AFVs are vulnerable in low numbers. And at the latest since WW2 we know that you have to protect tanks with infantry from close range at. It seems however that the russians have unlearned these lessons.

This experience report seems to suggest this and this video equally seems to confirm this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpx7TWc58PI And in general ive not seen any good infantry armour combined arms from the russian side.

The ukrainians seem to do this much better and id argue that this on its own massively contributes to the loss disparity between russian and ukrainian afvs.

Btw. Civ Div uploaded another video, from clearing the village east of Kupyansk. Worth to watch whole episodes as they give perfect sense of how combat looks. Note they operate a lot of different AT equipment (at least 3 different kinds of launchers in this small detachment) and have problems communicating each other over larger distances. It is also curious how Ukrainians manage ammo problems with so many types of rifles.

 

[Huba]

Didn't read the whole article, but this one point is worth acknowledging:

 

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, holoween said:

Ill make the case that the power of at weapons is overstated mostly due to bad tactics and a tech disparity.

We know since WW1 that tanks or rather generally AFVs are vulnerable in low numbers. And at the latest since WW2 we know that you have to protect tanks with infantry from close range at. It seems however that the russians have unlearned these lessons.

This experience report seems to suggest this and this video equally seems to confirm this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpx7TWc58PI And in general ive not seen any good infantry armour combined arms from the russian side.

The ukrainians seem to do this much better and id argue that this on its own massively contributes to the loss disparity between russian and ukrainian afvs.

 

There is also a massive disparity between most russian afvs and western afvs that is hard to overstate: thermals.

Take the video ive linked and imagine just replacing the bmp2 with any modern western ifv. Once the mobility kill happens (even NLAW isnt perfect) youd have 2 independently swung thermal imagers searching for them. And given they were in line of sight and repeatedly firing from the same position for 10min just 350m away even with 2nd gen thermal imagers they would have been spotted.

If we now pair this with proper AFV tactics so no continuous fighting from the same position, supporting infantry, a seconf IFV to support, and maybe some squad or platoon level spotting drones overhead this entire situation suddenly becomes practically impossible for the infantry. And if you add an active protection system they are screwed either way.

 

 

This has some quite significant caveats.

1. unless you have lock on after launch capability youre still limited to los engagements and that dramatically lowers the area a vehicle has to keep track of. It also means to engage the vehicle you have to be in los to the vehicle itself putting you at potential risk. That risk is quite low if youre 1000m away in complex terrain shooting at a single t72 but it becomes much higher if its a platoon of modern mbts. 8 high qualits thermal imagers scanning for you have a quite good chance spotting you even at distance.

2. And if you use lock after launch missiles you can keep yourself safe but still need something to tell you where the tank is. And especially if used at longer ranges its time of flight is significant enough that its better compared to organically called precision artillery.

A tank is definitely easier to find than an infantryman but both can be found and the ammount of drone footage of arty destroying infantry directed by drones is proof of that. A tank however is far more difficult to actually fix in place once spotted compared to infantry.

 

And this leads to The main reason why AFVs are unlikely to ever go away: As demonstrated in this war to gain grund you have to take it from the enemy and to hold it you have to defend it with infantry. No matter the firepower be it precision in cae of the ukrainians or mass in case of the russians can clear an objective. It has to be taken and cleared by infantry.

And once you have to take ground you have to be exposed and you will be detected and you will be shot at. And infantry is vulnerable to literally everything on a battlefield and it cant move at any significant speed on its own. So With drones everywhere the infantry is likely to be spotted and shot to pieces before they can even reach the jumpoff point for an attack or at the latest once the attack actually happens.

Try intercepting this with arty:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw8RDpS1uOE

 If AFVs were truely obsolete Ukraine wouldnt ask for hundreds of tanks and ifvs to enable them to attack.

 

Ok, well we have not addressed a lot so issues beyond throwing some old assumptions at them.  Next gen ATGMs are all trending to fire and forget, they lock on and the infantrymen are pretty much out of the picture.  They are also seeing ridiculous kill/hit ratios.

Visibility.  You can find mass infantry but finding small teams is still extremely challenging, and now they are all carrying those next gen ATGMs.  Even with thermals, good luck finding two guys a couple kms out in a treeline.  And frankly thermals are pretty easy to spoof.

Range, your proposed solution does not solve for the ranges we are talking about.  “They will be spotted and shot up?”  At 2500ms?  Even hitting where you think two guys in a treeline are at 1000m is damned hard.  You are going to wind up pouring buckets of ammo into every treeline, further stressing logistics. 

Combined Arms cooperation.  So you have to sweep out to 2500m in order to try and keep your armoured vehicles safe?  Your opponent spotted them over the horizon through about a zillion ISR possibilities.  So they knew you were coming potentially hours before you arrive.  So you are telling me that infantry even with UAS of their own are going to sweep several million square meters and it will be business as usual? This does not even count the really long range NLOS stuff, or mines that can walk.

AFVs are also big and hot, and die pretty well against those ATGM, and artillery systems.  In fact we know the UA has been dismounting well before contact while the RA stays in vehicles and dies.  I am half convinced the lack of infantry armoured coop has nothing to do with bad tactics at this point, it has to do with the fact that the tanks are back 10kms because they are dead any closer.

I am not talking about dug in infantry positions, those are likely a bad idea. I am talking about do fast moving light infantry all armed with NLAWs and radios.  Infantry is vulnerable…but there a lot more of them than we have tanks.  

You can do this in CMBS right now, and frankly based on this war that game needs an update.  Take 10 fully loaded Javelin teams on a sparsely wooded map, a big one, the biggest you can make - not these 2x2s, go get the ones from CMCW.  4x5.  Now have your opponent have free reign to place them and FOs where they like and give them all the UAS and some decent arty.  Then do your combined arms thing and see where things go.  You are going to have a lot of burning vehicles and dead troops and you might bag 20 enemy guys in the end.  That is an equation no military can win.

Oh and we have not even begun to discuss the vulnerable logistics system, which can and will be also hit at 2000ms and last I checked our tanks still need gas.

There are no easy solutions.  No “oh they suck, we will just do what we were doing but better.”  Too many fundamentals have shifted - visibility, range/reach, lethality, autonomy/precision, and the death of surprise.  And we are only debating armor and AFVs here within the current war.  Ukraine is like the early days of aircraft when the pilots would shoot pistols at each other.  What happens when NLAW 2 can hit like Spike?  Or when UGVs hit the ground?

No, I was willing to give the old system a chance but it has clearly failed both sides to an extent in this war (tanks used as indirect fire platforms).  If anyone clings to the old way of doing business and planning to fight the last war they deserve what is coming to them.

Edited January 18, 2023 by The_Capt

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, holoween said:

Ill make the case that the power of at weapons is overstated mostly due to bad tactics and a tech disparity.

We know since WW1 that tanks or rather generally AFVs are vulnerable in low numbers. And at the latest since WW2 we know that you have to protect tanks with infantry from close range at. It seems however that the russians have unlearned these lessons.

This experience report seems to suggest this and this video equally seems to confirm this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpx7TWc58PI And in general ive not seen any good infantry armour combined arms from the russian side.

The ukrainians seem to do this much better and id argue that this on its own massively contributes to the loss disparity between russian and ukrainian afvs.

 

There is also a massive disparity between most russian afvs and western afvs that is hard to overstate: thermals.

Take the video ive linked and imagine just replacing the bmp2 with any modern western ifv. Once the mobility kill happens (even NLAW isnt perfect) youd have 2 independently swung thermal imagers searching for them. And given they were in line of sight and repeatedly firing from the same position for 10min just 350m away even with 2nd gen thermal imagers they would have been spotted.

If we now pair this with proper AFV tactics so no continuous fighting from the same position, supporting infantry, a seconf IFV to support, and maybe some squad or platoon level spotting drones overhead this entire situation suddenly becomes practically impossible for the infantry. And if you add an active protection system they are screwed either way.

 

 

This has some quite significant caveats.

1. unless you have lock on after launch capability youre still limited to los engagements and that dramatically lowers the area a vehicle has to keep track of. It also means to engage the vehicle you have to be in los to the vehicle itself putting you at potential risk. That risk is quite low if youre 1000m away in complex terrain shooting at a single t72 but it becomes much higher if its a platoon of modern mbts. 8 high qualits thermal imagers scanning for you have a quite good chance spotting you even at distance.

2. And if you use lock after launch missiles you can keep yourself safe but still need something to tell you where the tank is. And especially if used at longer ranges its time of flight is significant enough that its better compared to organically called precision artillery.

A tank is definitely easier to find than an infantryman but both can be found and the ammount of drone footage of arty destroying infantry directed by drones is proof of that. A tank however is far more difficult to actually fix in place once spotted compared to infantry.

 

And this leads to The main reason why AFVs are unlikely to ever go away: As demonstrated in this war to gain grund you have to take it from the enemy and to hold it you have to defend it with infantry. No matter the firepower be it precision in cae of the ukrainians or mass in case of the russians can clear an objective. It has to be taken and cleared by infantry.

And once you have to take ground you have to be exposed and you will be detected and you will be shot at. And infantry is vulnerable to literally everything on a battlefield and it cant move at any significant speed on its own. So With drones everywhere the infantry is likely to be spotted and shot to pieces before they can even reach the jumpoff point for an attack or at the latest once the attack actually happens.

Try intercepting this with arty:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw8RDpS1uOE

 If AFVs were truely obsolete Ukraine wouldnt ask for hundreds of tanks and ifvs to enable them to attack.

 

AFVs are not obsolete in THIS war, the war five or ten years from now could be very different. Let me just throw out one improvement in ATGMS that is so obvious I am shocked it hasn't been deployed already . The Stugna P has already demonstrated the vast utility of ~50 meters of cable in making ATGMs a lot safer for the operators. The next iteration will separate the optics from the missile. And the missiles become fire and forget aka Javelins. So every missile is launching from a unique location and the expensive optic is somewhere else, and the operator is separated from it. Again I am expecting this any day, in a very few years every piece of the system drives itself around.  So instead of getting tracking the missile back to it origin, and hopefully hitting something or someone there, you have to suppress at least a couple of hundred meters of tree line, and get the operators behind cover.

[kevinkin]

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

infiltrate, isolate and  eliminate

That describes Hutier tactics in WW1 against the dug-in allies. However, Germany lacked the mobility to exploit where those tactics worked. So the question becomes: what do you follow up your infiltrating groups with? Not concentrations of armor since they are too easy to find, fix and destroy. But the armor can be used to strengthen the follow-on units adding an element of shock action to Hutier formations. A one - two punch. Holding ground will indeed be difficult. RA conscripts might be used to absorb and harass the light Hutier units, while "better" RA formations wait to counterattack. To hold ground, the operational depth of the defense will have to be disrupted long enough to allow the formation of new lines. Ideally, you would break clear and really screw with the RA rear areas. This sounds old fashioned, and it is. But at some point, large sectors of RA front will have to disintegrate either materially or morally. Sniping at supply dumps is part of the overall picture, but eventually the UA will have to abandon the patience they deserve and fish or cut bait. One key to good generalship is the ability to concentrate your forces in time and space long enough to gain your objectives while limiting their exposure to enemy action. The jury is still out on how that will achieved in 2023 given the all seeing eye on ISR.  

[holoween]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Ok, well we have not addressed the range issue.  Next gen ATGMs are all trending to fire and forget, they lock on and the infantrymen are pretty much out of the picture.

yea but for the locking on process at the very least they have to be exposed. watch the video i linked. they are in an ambush position waiting for the bmp2 and are exposed for some time because they dont just go from being in full cover to locking on to full cover again. and at the quoted 350m even on 2nd gen thermals they are glowing dots.

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Visibility.  You can find mass infantry but finding small teams is still extremely challenging, and now they are all carrying those next gen ATGMs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJSfEEdV76k

if they have to move youre even going to find small teams and even if you dont to attack you need more than just a small team.

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Range, your proposed solution does not solve for the ranges we are talking about.  “They will be spotted and shot up?”  At 2500ms?  Even hitting where you think two guys in a treeline are at 1000m is damned hard.  You are going to wind up pouring buckets of ammo into every treeline, further stressing logistics. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw8RDpS1uOE

To give some idea what kind of accuracy were talking about in this video im aiming at the trees with inert rounds. They are max around 30cm thick and im opening fire at 1500m hitting them reliably. If i spot a target i have no problem getting an he round close enough to cause them significant problems.

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Combined Arms cooperation.  So you have to sweep out to 2500m in order to try and keep your armoured vehicles safe.

but you cant see every point from every point out to 2500m or differently put terrain exists and interferes with theoretical max range otherwise the tank beats the atgm in range any time.

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

 Your opponent spotted them over the horizon through about a zillion ISR possibilities.  So they knew you were coming potentially hours before you arrive.

you know the tanks are 20km back from the frontline. They can relocate at 60km/h so any place at roughly an 80 km long frontline is in the 1 hour timeframe for an attack.

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

 So you are telling me that infantry even with UAS of there own are going to sweep several million square meters and it will be business as usual.

no because there is a limit to where infantry that wants to live can actually be.

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

 This does not even count the really long range NLOS stuff, or mines that can walk.

NLOS atgms are functionally similar to guided artillery except they are easier to intercept. And a walking mine is far less scary than a normal hidden mine because if it walks towards me i can see it. additionally you dont know where i will attack so how many millions of walking mines do you want to spread over the entire border to be able to intercept an attack and why arent dumb mines cheaper and easier for the same purpose?

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

AFVs are also big and hot, and die pretty well agains those ATGM,

yea

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

and artillery systems.

no

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

 In fact we know the UA has been dismounting well before contact while the RA stays in vehicles and dies.

I really wonder how their tanks moce and shoot if they are dismounted

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

I am not talking about dug in infantry positions, those are likely a bad idea.

You might want to talk to literally any infantryman who wants to live

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

I am talking about do fast moving light infantry all armed with NLAWs and radios.  Infantry is vulnerable…but there a lot more of them than we have tanks.  

light infantry moves at 4km/h sustained rate especially if you load them with loads of atgms

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

You can do this in CMBS right now, and frankly based on this war that game needs an update.  Take 10 Javelin teams on a sparsely wooded map, a big one, the biggest you can make - not these 2x2s, go get the ones from CMCW.  4x5.  Now have your opponent have free reign to place them and FOs where they like and give them all the UAS and some decent arty.  Then do your combined arms thing and see where things go.

if your defense cant even stand up to a simple light infantry company you might want to reevaluate your choice of defense.

Or differently said if your defense cant stopp light infantry from attacking then Your oponent doesnt even need to use anything else. Only once you mass enough combat power to prevent this does he need to do more.

[Battlefront.com]

11 hours ago, womble said:

I suspect a very few of them might still be here, were it not for the generous vacation allowance that Steve and Elvis have dished their way...

Actually, we were VERY restrained.  I think we only vacationed one or two and only after repeated warnings they were being trolls.  For the most part they melted away.  For their sake, I hope figuratively.

10 hours ago, Harmon Rabb said:

Basically these days they are mostly hoping that mobilization will save Putin's invasion and claiming that if Ukraine is not able to take back the territory which Russia annexed, Putin won the war. 

Next time you have the "priveledge" of speaking to one of them, make sure they specify WHICH mobilization they think will turn the tide in favor of Russia.  Because by my count there's already been two (one off the books) and a third is on the way.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

12 hours ago, Kinophile said:

@Battlefront.com I'm curious on what capacity you're meeting that Deep State Deep Throat...

Your industry is niche within the military training regime,  you're not a published historian or (publicly) working analyst and BFC,  while certainly idiosyncratic in regard to other Mil sims,  is small fry. 

Is their interest in the products or your process,  or for your 10th Man take on things?

Dunno, honestly!  Just know there's an opportunity to share our collective wisdom and so that's about it.  I am sure it will get read, but have extremely low expectations for anything coming from it.

12 hours ago, Kinophile said:

ie Are they seriously looking at CMBS? Or are they interested in how you and the team analyse the context, develop the backstory, flesh out the narrative and build the resulting campaigns? And/or from that,  looking at external takes on their current CoA? 

The ideas you listed are all future-pointing and national strategic level, yet CMBS is the most modern product you have but is almost a decade old and tactical level. So what are they plumbing your depths for?

Why you?  And why now? And why so broad a list? 

Nah, nothing like that.  My meeting is not Battlefront related, but 3 years ago the person did joke about hiring us as consultants after I told him about how CMBS came to be.

As for potential professional interest in CM, that's been on the increase since our partnership with Slitherine.  Lots of potential there, always has been.  Just needed the right partner to get things beyond the interest phase.

Steve

[cyrano01]

51 minutes ago, dan/california said:

. The Stugna P has already demonstrated the vast utility of ~50 meters of cable in making ATGMs a lot safer for the operators. The next iteration will separate the optics from the missile.

Been around since the 1970s...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swingfire#Replacement_in_British_Army

[Battlefront.com]

9 hours ago, FancyCat said:

Recall that the proposals for avoiding the invasion, floated by France and Germany at least were to declare Ukraine off limits to NATO membership. Now I'm not opposed to the idea, I think it was worthwhile in the name of peace, but it has been clearly and consistently established NATO will not intervene in Ukraine.

Ukraine was prepared to agree to this even after the first few days of war.  Putin rejected all concessions from Ukraine and the war continued.  Ukraine will not likely agree to any security arrangement that boils down to trusting Russia to be nice in the future.  I think Ukraine would be fine with unilateral guarrantees and "tripwire" forces being present in Eastern Ukraine.  I mean, really, if the US is there to guarantee Ukraine's security, does anybody here think a new act of Russian aggression will end well for Russia even without all of NATO backing it?  Further, if Russia did launch a war how much of NATO would act even if NATO doesn't formally go for it?

8 hours ago, Vet 0369 said:

It could also be a case of Russian internet restrictions/surveillance of which we aren’t aware. I believe there are more than a couple of forum members who have “shutdown and gone to ground” for fear of prosecutions. One that I remember stated that they had just been “interrogated” so they were going to ground. It must be pretty dangerous for someone in Russia, or one of the occupied, annexed, or “break-away” territories to post on an admittedly pro-Ukraine forum. We all have had any good and instructive conversations with those who don’t share our points of view. It’s always beneficial to know and understand the opposing points of view. As Sun Tzu said, “know your enemy!”

I know at least two Russians posters that are vehemently against this war.  One had a visit from the FSB within days of the war's start, ostensibly to remind him how lucky he is to have the wonderful freedoms that Russia affords him.  Neither have posted since and I fear for one of them.  The other still seems to be able to view the forum.

As for the others, a few of the Pro-Putin (or at least anti-Ukrainian) posters do not live in Russia so they are opting out of this thread for their own reasons.  Of the pro-Putin Russians in Russia, the FSB would be thrilled if they were here spreading propaganda, so if they aren't posting here that means they have either had a change of heart or they realize there's no point.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

8 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

It's part of this new plague among part of Russian influencers of provoking people around the world to harm them; there are plenty of these folks in Baltics, occassionally in other places too. Probably they have some benefits from Russian propaganda departments. Not worth to get involved in these provocations- he shouldn't be allowed to even enter Europe in the first place.

There is a lot os speculations as of tomorrow's Putin announcement. Probably he can talk about "red lines" for new equipment, perhaps mobilization too.

A propos:

 

I counted 14 rows of 10 and 4 or so at the start.  Rounding up that is 1405 graves.  The guy is walking by another column, so that's another 1420 in total.  I doubt he was walking between dug graves, so I don't think it's 5 per row.

The graves were all dug at the same rough timeframe by the looks of it.

Steve

[Vet 0369]

5 hours ago, Haiduk said:

No photo alas, but today Air Force Command officially claimed all 10 missiles, which hit Kyiv, Kyiv and Chernihiv oblasts were launched from S-400, deployed in Briansk oblast.

Who wants to bet that there will soon be a “careless smoking accident” in Brian’s Oblast?

[Kinophile]

29 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Dunno, honestly!  Just know there's an opportunity to share our collective wisdom and so that's about it.  I am sure it will get read, but have extremely low expectations for anything coming from it.

Nah, nothing like that.  My meeting is not Battlefront related, but 3 years ago the person did joke about hiring us as consultants after I told him about how CMBS came to be.

As for potential professional interest in CM, that's been on the increase since our partnership with Slitherine.  Lots of potential there, always has been.  Just needed the right partner to get things beyond the interest phase.

Steve

Interesting,  thank you. Very intriguing. 

[chrisl]

37 minutes ago, holoween said:

yea but for the locking on process at the very least they have to be exposed. watch the video i linked. they are in an ambush position waiting for the bmp2 and are exposed for some time because they dont just go from being in full cover to locking on to full cover again. and at the quoted 350m even on 2nd gen thermals they are glowing dots.

 

For now, and for countries with limited tech development.  It won’t be long before lock is transferred from a drone so the launcher is firing over the horizon.  That’s an obvious next step for Javelin and Stugna type atgms.  But availability will be very asymmetric.