How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[JM Stuff]

About new module for CMBS, with the time and the real situation in Ukraine, (Chieftain, Leopard...) I think we can already using europa/Us vehicles from Sf2, where a conversion is possible.

They are perhaps already on the BFC screens now, waiting to a reworked and convincing possible choice...?

Cheers

[Lethaface]

19 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

One of the most brilliant interviews(in term me learning new stuff) of the war: 
former head of RAF Intelligence Edward Stringer 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNepMICxRJM

To raise the best part: timestamp link https://youtu.be/SNepMICxRJM?t=2566
"Is it time to gift the entire British tank fleet to UKR?" (includes the whole mech force)

• TLDR or TLDW: Absolutely yes. One of the "best deals" in security strategy in a long while. 
• Strategically thinking MoDs exists to protect from acute threat to our way of live in the transatlantic area. The threat has revealed itself clearly, we do not have to wait on the goal line for it to come to us. We need to remove that threat and that threat will not come back in years. (combine this to the fact RUS is using up the super power heritage that is never coming back)
• British have old legacy equipment that was created for this job. We already saw the announcements of AS90 that he takes to mean that "We have now pretty much decided to get rid of those". 
• The counter sending the tanks is: "We have NATO commitments and need to defend ourselves and always be ready". He says that is what he would call "fallacy: No, sorry you cannot take that, it is the last one and somebody might want that." The task it was bought originally for is now, why would we need to keep it?
  Lets look who would really worry about giving the tanks?
  1. NATO: Stoltenberg is arguing for more aid and has not raided such concerns 
  2. What countries would be most worried about Brits losing their mech force? Those are the ones on the frontlines (Estonia, Poland...) and they are to most enthusiastic for these transfer for Ukraine. If they are saying this, we should be listening.
• This is an opportunity for Britain to get rid of (and replace) its indigenous, no longer produced or sold tank fleets. Time to join multinational programs?

 

Although repeating myself

What about the current tankers & mechanics? One anecdote is my country, we got rid of our tanks but then somebody realized we would also lose all knowledge & experience of the tank arm. So we leased back a battalion of the same tanks from Germany. Now it's not exactly the same case, but there is a similarity: trained personnel.

Now if UK could make a decision overnight and join a multinational program and have the training commence within a couple of months: that's one thing. If such a program would take a couple of years, there's probably not many tankers left in service by the time that they're ready to start. 

[The_MonkeyKing]

2 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Although repeating myself

What about the current tankers & mechanics? One anecdote is my country, we got rid of our tanks but then somebody realized we would also lose all knowledge & experience of the tank arm. So we leased back a battalion of the same tanks from Germany. Now it's not exactly the same case, but there is a similarity: trained personnel.

Now if UK could make a decision overnight and join a multinational program and have the training commence within a couple of months: that's one thing. If such a program would take a couple of years, there's probably not many tankers left in service by the time that they're ready to start. 

Moot point 

[Lethaface]

8 minutes ago, Huba said:

I was wondering about that too. If you have to load the bloody thing on a train or a flatbed, does moving it 800km instead of 500 make that much of a difference? It literally is a few hours, maybe half a day more in total.

I'd say no it doesn't, plus as a bonus the repair place can't be shelled by Russia.

[Lethaface]

Just now, The_MonkeyKing said:

Moot point 

Great argumentation.

[holoween]

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

First, let's identify and rank the most important systems and why:

1. ISR (in particular small drones) - if you have this, everything else becomes easier and more effective.  Even if your guys are all buck naked and without weapons, at the very least you can keep them alive by directing them away from the enemy and pass on information that might make the next unit have better luck.
2. Coms - if you aren't able to quickly and efficiently pass information around outside of your immediate positions, then you're not going to be very effective.  You also won't be able to take advantage of most anything else in this list.
3. PGMs on call - one drone team with a radio can ruin just about any plan the enemy might have.  Period.  Doesn't matter what delivers the PGM, only that it is delivered when it is called for and lands where intended.
4. Dumb artillery on call - not as good as PGMs for some tasks, but given enough of it and of the right caliber it can be just as good or (for widely dispersed targets) better.  But it's more difficult, less likely to succeed, and has a greater chance of being countered.
5. AT weapons - the more capable the better, the greater the number the better.  Sure, it is optimal to have Javelins and NLAWs, but if you have a large number of short range one shot weapons you've got options when combined with ISR and coms.  Especially if the enemy doesn't have dismounted infantry to worry about.
6. Plentiful infantry - as with any battlefield since the dawn of time, the side with more soldiers has a theoretical advantage over the one with fewer.
7. Heavy AFVs - these can be a liability, perhaps even a death sentence, if not handled correctly for the circumstances.  However, when handled correctly they have the opposite effect.  Obviously more capable vehicles are better, however an armored light wheeled vehicle with a M2 mounted on it can be all a force needs to get the job done.

I assume this takes current western units as a starting point? 

If not what is the starting baseline of assumptions?

[The_MonkeyKing]

2 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Great argumentation.

It is true. Such a small matter that has many many solutions. In no way is argument for not sending the tanks, it is a line to add to the expense calculation.

That problem can be solved with money, equipment renting, shared exercises and maybe Britain wants to downsize its armored force significant now that the threat it was created for practically disappeared and is not coming back in anyway same scale, NATO allies can compensate and Britain role could shift to air and navy even more.... 

That is what I came up with in couple of minutes. I am sure the whole British MoD can solve this and put a price on the solution.

[kevinkin]

This is the theme of the week:

Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda said after visiting Berlin: “I strongly believe that Chancellor Scholz will decide on this and I was a witness of a very important break point or turning point in the thinking or mentality of Germany.”

Western rhetoric in support of Ukraine has rarely been as strident. The next few days will show whether the pledges of military aid match that resolve.

At the operational level I called it "fish or cut bait". We have patience but don't have to live through the nightmare.  So let's  ban zombie apocalypse books for a year and get on with it. 

  https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/18/politics/biden-ukraine-new-tipping-point/index.html

[The_Capt]

40 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

One of the most brilliant interviews(in term me learning new stuff) of the war: 
former head of RAF Intelligence Edward Stringer 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNepMICxRJM

To raise the best part: timestamp link https://youtu.be/SNepMICxRJM?t=2566
"Is it time to gift the entire British tank fleet to UKR?" (includes the whole mech force)

• TLDR or TLDW: Absolutely yes. One of the "best deals" in security strategy in a long while. 
• Strategically thinking MoDs exists to protect from acute threat to our way of live in the transatlantic area. The threat has revealed itself clearly, we do not have to wait on the goal line for it to come to us. We need to remove that threat and that threat will not come back in years. (combine this to the fact RUS is using up the super power heritage that is never coming back)
• British have old legacy equipment that was created for this job. We already saw the announcements of AS90 that he takes to mean that "We have now pretty much decided to get rid of those". 
• The counter sending the tanks is: "We have NATO commitments and need to defend ourselves and always be ready". He says that is what he would call "fallacy: No, sorry you cannot take that, it is the last one and somebody might want that." The task it was bought originally for is now, why would we need to keep it?
  Lets look who would really worry about giving the tanks?
  1. NATO: Stoltenberg is arguing for more aid and has not raided such concerns 
  2. What countries would be most worried about Brits losing their mech force? Those are the ones on the frontlines (Estonia, Poland...) and they are to most enthusiastic for these transfer for Ukraine. If they are saying this, we should be listening.
• This is an opportunity for Britain to get rid of (and replace) its indigenous, no longer produced or sold tank fleets. Time to join multinational programs?

 

So if I am reading this right, “Let’s make Ukraine a dumping ground for a bunch of equipment we do not want and can no longer support”?  So how is Ukraine going to support them if the UK does not think they can?

[Lethaface]

1 minute ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

It is true. Such a small matter that has many many solutions. In no way is argument for not sending the tanks, it is a line to add to the expense calculation.

That problem can be solved with money, equipment renting, shared exercises and maybe Britain wants to downsize its armored force significant now that the threat it was created for practically disappeared and is not coming back in anyway same scale, NATO allies can compensate and Britain role could shift to air and navy even more.... 

That is what I came up with in couple of minutes. I am sure the whole British MoD can solve this and put a price on the solution.

I think you're missing the point. Anyway imo switching a tank in a professional army isn't the same as switching a car for a private person. But maybe I'm thinking too difficult.

The question is what the UK wants with it's tank force; decisions like these usually aren't made in a couple of minutes. Doing away with the current tanks before answering that question and assuming that what becomes of the tankers is small beer which will be solved anyhow along the way is a classical example if how fubars happen.
But I digress.

[cyrano01]

2 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So if I am reading this right, “Let’s make Ukraine a dumping ground for a bunch of equipment we do not want and can no longer support”?  So how is Ukraine going to support them if the UK does not think they can?

Quite. One of the factors driving the Challenger 3 upgrade is not having a producton line for 120mm rifled ammo any more. Given the rate at which ammunition is being expended in Ukraine the Challenger 2s would be a time-limited asset at best. My feeling is that the importance of the Challenger offer is that the UK is trying and push the Western nations over the MBT threshold rather than any sensible practical, sustainable capability.

[kevinkin]

This is the theme of the week:

Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda said after visiting Berlin: “I strongly believe that Chancellor Scholz will decide on this and I was a witness of a very important break point or turning point in the thinking or mentality of Germany.”

Western rhetoric in support of Ukraine has rarely been as strident. The next few days will show whether the pledges of military aid match that resolve.

At the operational level I called it "fish or cut bait". We have patience but don't have to live through the nightmare.  So let's  ban zombie apocalypse books for a year and get on with it. 

  https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/18/politics/biden-ukraine-new-tipping-point/index.html

[The_MonkeyKing]

6 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So if I am reading this right, “Let’s make Ukraine a dumping ground for a bunch of equipment we do not want and can no longer support”?  So how is Ukraine going to support them if the UK does not think they can?

Yes, dumping ground for equipment that was created for the job that they would be doing in Ukraine. Sounds good to me. Of course planning and coordination(and generally using sense) is needed and has been lacking in the past (example lets not give 4 different types of western MBT, optimally just one maybe two).

Ukrainians clearly want them and think they need them.  

Brittish can support this equipment but don't want to because it is not optimal for them. Not that they are some sort of "toxic waste".

[Huba]

11 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So if I am reading this right, “Let’s make Ukraine a dumping ground for a bunch of equipment we do not want and can no longer support”?  So how is Ukraine going to support them if the UK does not think they can?

Wouldn't keeping them in the fight for some time be a fundamentally different task than keeping them cost-efficiently in peacetime service for another few decades? 

[kevinkin]

The article is way to dire at the end:

https://asiatimes.com/2023/01/americas-strategy-of-failure-comes-to-ukraine/

But, 

At the precise moment that the Americans had achieved their desired goal, though, Washington doubled down and encouraged the Ukrainians to shift their objective from one of realistic territorial defense to an insane attempt to restore Ukrainian control completely over both eastern Ukraine and the heavily fortified Crimean Peninsula.

Only time will time if it was insane to think all things Russian could be destroyed via a proxy war. Pretty soon the term quagmire is going to surface. This is going to be one heck of a campaigning season if both sides marshal everything this winter. Maybe one last die roll. Winner take all. 

[Zeleban]

Ukraine continues to use the T-84. Remarkable reverse speed, unlike the T-90M

Edited January 18, 2023 by Zeleban

[pintere]

1 minute ago, Zeleban said:

Ukraine continues to use the T-84

Are they still building new T-84s?

[Zeleban]

6 minutes ago, pintere said:

Are they still building new T-84s?

 

No. Although... who knows. Kharkov is dangerously close to Russia and it would be a very bad idea to produce tanks there. To organize similar production in a new place, very serious organizational measures are needed. Before the start of the war, Ukraine did not dare to launch the mass production of Olot tanks, as they were too expensive. Perhaps thanks to the finances of European countries, this would be possible

Edited January 18, 2023 by Zeleban

[keas66]

11 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

The article is way to dire at the end:

https://asiatimes.com/2023/01/americas-strategy-of-failure-comes-to-ukraine/

But, 

At the precise moment that the Americans had achieved their desired goal, though, Washington doubled down and encouraged the Ukrainians to shift their objective from one of realistic territorial defense to an insane attempt to restore Ukrainian control completely over both eastern Ukraine and the heavily fortified Crimean Peninsula.

Only time will time if it was insane to think all things Russian could be destroyed via a proxy war. Pretty soon the term quagmire is going to surface. This is going to be one heck of a campaigning season if both sides marshal everything this winter. Maybe one last die roll. Winner take all. 

 

Not sure how much weight/attention I would pay to any articles penned by  Brandon J Weichert  ?

Here is another goodie from him : https://amgreatness.com/2023/01/13/russia-not-yet-defeated/

He wants Ukraine to surrender Crimea and the Donbas to Russia  - ie make a deal / surrender .

[The_Capt]

Ok, let's really get into this because I am seeing the fundamental flaw coming out of the "everything is just fine" camp.  The argument, largely coming out of professional military armored circles or those who really love tanks, is pretty much the same.  It posits that:

- Both sides in Ukraine are "doing it wrong".

- "Russia sux"

- "If they all fought like we do, it would all be over by now."   Meaning the conventional combined arms doctrine in context of some form of manoeuvre warfare and AirlLand battle.

- "APS will save us!"

Then, like here we get some cherry picked anecdotes and some really weird twisted logic to somehow defend heavy systems.  They downplay the realities of risk and technological development in this war, which is part of an ongoing trend that had been unfolding for at least a decade.  And never really address the fundamental shifts within the key components of ground warfare which have shifted, not in their communities favour.

So lets unpack some pushback points head on:

11 hours 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.

Sure for some systems - NLOS and stand-offs such as the Stugna P get around that, and I am pretty sure there will be heavy investment in these systems in the near future.  Some shooters have to step out/up for a few seconds at range with the current systems.  But we are talking about spotting and engaging a small team effectively in seconds at rages out to 2500m.  It has never been and never will be easier to spot a single man with a man portable system at 2500 than that individual can spot a 60t vehicle.  Shorter ranges are not that better either. Sure they have thermals, but those thermals have to pointed in the right spot and in seconds.  And a dismounted man is nowhere near as hot as a 60t vehicle burning gas.

And here is the thing...so freakin what?  A team of ATGM gets knocked out, hurrah!  Right up to the point that there are twenty more out there.  At a min manoeuvre has slowed to a crawl.

11 hours ago, holoween said:

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

So that is a small recon team moving out for close recon in broad daylight with no ISR support as far as we can tell.  Well first it is pretty anecdotal.  We have seen dozens of videos of tank strikes by hidden teams, we have also seen infantry spotted and killed by artillery.  There is a risk of being spotted, definitely.  Modern recon have ground radars designed to detect motion, lot of EM flying everywhere.  But in order to bypass the asymmetric disadvantage posed by these systems you have to observe and control every inch of an enormous area.  Further, operational and strategic ISR can pick up vehicle formations from space - so those small teams can be prepositioned well ahead of an advance.

11 hours ago, holoween said:

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

    So I have seen a lot of these videos as well - "look at how accurate these new systems are".  "IF" you can spot the target at range is a huge "IF"  The evidence from this war is showing that it is the small teams of infantry that are spotting first.  And again the entire cost equation is totally upside down.  A nation can replace light infantry at a much higher rate than it can replace tanks/AFVs - so even if you do use laser precision 90% of the time, that 10% is going to whittle an armored force to pieces over time.  You still have not solved for the fundamentals of visibility and range.  Your vehicle now has to scan an enormous arc to hopefully see a guy expose himself for a few seconds, and then you are dead if you are slower than he is.

11 hours ago, holoween said:

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?

If NLOS are "easy to intercept" then why are UAS everywhere on the modern battlefield?  They are not "easy" to intercept when used in large numbers.  We are talking systems that are going to skim treelines and hills until they lock and hit.  They will only need a shot/kill ratios of around 50% - at $210k a pop, to overwhelm the costs of the armored systems they are hitting.  And there are rumours in this war of Javelin coming in at 80-90%...which is nuts.  As to walking mines, the lack of imagination I find baffling.  So if someone plants a set of UGV mines that can move and get under a tank to kill it from below.  They can be hidden everywhere so until they move you likely will not detect them.  Then they wait until the armour/AFVs are nice and close, and suddenly you have got explosive cockroaches all scuttling at you.  We have no counter to that.  This is like the Battle of Yonkers in WWZ, all those fancy guns that can shave a peach at 1500m are going to be useless.

Now to the underlined part - how can I not know where you are?  This is the biggest take away of this entire war.  A modern armored Battlegroup is about 5-10kms long on the march, when one takes into account F/A1/A2 and B echelons.  Given the ISR environment shaping up, I will know exactly where you are and very likely where you are going to be, because I can also see the terrain and shape the space.  So 1 million dumb mines are a complete waste of resources when a few thousand can be prepositioned, re-position if they need to.  Best case is you spot them before they swarm you, at which point your move is completely stalled until you can figure out a counter.

11 hours ago, holoween said:

no

So this was your response to "AFVs are vulnerable to artillery".  Well I would point to the steady stream of evidence coming out of this war and the simple fact that artillery is doing 80-90% of the killing.  Beyond that, this argument is symptomatic of what I have seen coming out of the "community", it basically buries the head in the sand.

11 hours ago, holoween said:

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.

Just going to jump to the end here.  So this is sticking to old metrics.  Light infantry move faster operationally but lack punching power of heavy.  Well guess what? They found their punching power.

So out of all of that we have bad assumptions, underplaying risks and over-playing capability.  This is pretty consistent with what has been coming out of the "heavy community" mainstream since last spring.  So instead of having an actual analysis and assessment of where heavy is going, we are instead being told that this entire war is an anomaly.  The UA, who have demonstrated an amazing ability to learn on this battlefield and in many way are ahead of any western doctrine are "doing it wrong."  I propose that they are doing it exactly right for wherever warfare is heading and the fact that they are winning is clear evidence. 

The analysis you provide is directly in line with what mainstream assessments came up with at the beginning of this war.  Based on the rules as we understood them, Russia should have won this war.  It had massive advantages in mass.  Oh that is right "they suck" and the UA just got lucky. 

Or, and everyone say it with me now, the fundamental components of warfare are shifting.  And this is driving an evolution on how wars will be fought.  Historically those that get with the program quickly have advantage for the next war.  Or we can cling to "tradition" and get our asses handed to us.

[kevinkin]

Not sure how much weight/attention I would pay to any articles penned by  Brandon J Weichert  ?

Just one guy's opinion and opinions are cheap - lives are not. He is noting that the US has wanted complete and clean solutions in recent history damaging the county's interests globally by saying in conflict too long. As been discussed already here, Russia has lost this war even if they hold Donbas and Crimea. We would love to see MORE. It's at our fingertips. We can smell it. But that may require direct western involvement on the ground or in the air i.e. taking the war into the Russia itself. And if we go down that road what a mess. Look, the man is nuts to think NATO will dissolve if the war goes south. It will end way before that. I don't like to discount every opinion just because it's at odds with mine. The writer's opinion paints the walls in Washington, or at least the molding. 

Edited January 18, 2023 by kevinkin

[The_Capt]

Just now, The_MonkeyKing said:

Yes, dumping ground for equipment that was created for the job that they would be doing in Ukraine. Sounds good to me. Of course planning and coordination(and generally using sense) is needed and has been lacking in the past (example lets not give 4 different types of western MBT, optimally just one maybe two).

Ukrainians clearly want them and think they need them.  

Brittish can support this equipment but don't want to because it is not optimal for them. Not that they are some sort of "toxic waste".

I posted a bit back yesterday.  Do the rest right and sure we can turn Ukraine into a western tank boneyard.  We have written pages on why there is a lot of risk with this idea - training and sustainment.  This strategy of dumping "what we do not need" begs the question, "well what do we need?"

I find the UAs push for these systems 1) a mystery, and 2) very political.  I am not sure about the first one, the UA has about 1000 tanks and 3000 AFV according to graphics being thrown around.  They definitely need support in sustaining that fleet, but I am still not seeing what a bunch of western hardware with potential severe support limitations is going to do exactly.  As to the second, wont even touch it.

Just now, Huba said:

Wouldn't keeping them in the fight for some time be a fundamentally different task than keeping them cost-efficiently in peacetime service for another few decades?

Absolutely.  Keeping them in a fight is much, much, harder.  It will burn through ammo and spare parts in a month what the UK may have in stocks to support training and low intensity conflict for years.

Having spent time in military procurement and operational support, if the UK was trending towards dumping these tanks then the ice cube has been shaved down a lot already - I know ours has.  

Once again, do not simply dump hardware on the UA, it will create a total mess. Create complete units and formations that can do the right job at the right time.

[Twisk]

I think no one has posted this. Article about nuclear weapons from POV of not ensuring Ukraine wins. Russia is using nuclear threat as a shield to strike Ukraine with relative impunity and forcing the fight to only occur in the bounds of invaded territory. So victory of any sort will validate strategy of bully nation using nuclear not as deterrence from attack but as shield from intervention.
 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/01/russias-invasion-ukraine-war-nuclear-weapon-nato/672727/

Quote

Those arguments are based on lies. They are being spread to justify Russia’s unprecedented use of nuclear blackmail to seize territory from a neighboring state. Concerns about a possible nuclear exchange have thus far deterred the United States and NATO from providing Ukraine with the tanks, aircraft, and long-range missiles that might change the course of the war. If nuclear threats or the actual use of nuclear weapons leads to the defeat of Ukraine, Russia may use them to coerce other states. Tactics once considered immoral and unthinkable might become commonplace. Nuclear weapons would no longer be regarded solely as a deterrent of last resort; the nine countries that possess them would gain even greater influence; countries that lack them would seek to obtain them; and the global risk of devastating wars would increase exponentially. That is why the greatest nuclear threat we face is a Russian victory in Ukraine.

 

Edited January 18, 2023 by Twisk

[Lethaface]

1 minute ago, The_Capt said:

Absolutely.  Keeping them in a fight is much, much, harder.  It will burn through ammo and spare parts in a month what the UK may have in stocks to support training and low intensity conflict for years.

Having spent time in military procurement and operational support, if the UK was trending towards dumping these tanks then the ice cube has been shaved down a lot already - I know ours has.  

Once again, do not simply dump hardware on the UA, it will create a total mess. Create complete units and formations that can do the right job at the right time.

On another note I can already see the Twitter / Witchunt Feeds going should a significant number of the send Challengers be out of commission after a couple of battles. I don't think UK gov would be happy with such PR from a (geo)political perspective. Sending 200 creates expectations which might not be met.

Anyway the tank yeast infection has returned :D. I'll get myself some other form of yeast holding stuff and see myself out.

[Butschi]

38 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Ok, let's really get into this because I am seeing the fundamental flaw coming out of the "everything is just fine" camp.  The argument, largely coming out of professional military armored circles or those who really love tanks, is pretty much the same.  It posits that:

- Both sides in Ukraine are "doing it wrong".

- "Russia sux"

- "If they all fought like we do, it would all be over by now."   Meaning the conventional combined arms doctrine in context of some form of manoeuvre warfare and AirlLand battle.

- "APS will save us!"

Then, like here we get some cherry picked anecdotes and some really weird twisted logic to somehow defend heavy systems.  They downplay the realities of risk and technological development in this war, which is part of an ongoing trend that had been unfolding for at least a decade.  And never really address the fundamental shifts within the key components of ground warfare which have shifted, not in their communities favour.

So lets unpack some pushback points head on:

Sure for some systems - NLOS and stand-offs such as the Stugna P get around that, and I am pretty sure there will be heavy investment in these systems in the near future.  Some shooters have to step out/up for a few seconds at range with the current systems.  But we are talking about spotting and engaging a small team effectively in seconds at rages out to 2500m.  It has never been and never will be easier to spot a single man with a man portable system at 2500 than that individual can spot a 60t vehicle.  Shorter ranges are not that better either. Sure they have thermals, but those thermals have to pointed in the right spot and in seconds.  And a dismounted man is nowhere near as hot as a 60t vehicle burning gas.

And here is the thing...so freakin what?  A team of ATGM gets knocked out, hurrah!  Right up to the point that there are twenty more out there.  At a min manoeuvre has slowed to a crawl.

So that is a small recon team moving out for close recon in broad daylight with no ISR support as far as we can tell.  Well first it is pretty anecdotal.  We have seen dozens of videos of tank strikes by hidden teams, we have also seen infantry spotted and killed by artillery.  There is a risk of being spotted, definitely.  Modern recon have ground radars designed to detect motion, lot of EM flying everywhere.  But in order to bypass the asymmetric disadvantage posed by these systems you have to observe and control every inch of an enormous area.  Further, operational and strategic ISR can pick up vehicle formations from space - so those small teams can be prepositioned well ahead of an advance.

    So I have seen a lot of these videos as well - "look at how accurate these new systems are".  "IF" you can spot the target at range is a huge "IF"  The evidence from this war is showing that it is the small teams of infantry that are spotting first.  And again the entire cost equation is totally upside down.  A nation can replace light infantry at a much higher rate than it can replace tanks/AFVs - so even if you do use laser precision 90% of the time, that 10% is going to whittle an armored force to pieces over time.  You still have not solved for the fundamentals of visibility and range.  Your vehicle now has to scan an enormous arc to hopefully see a guy expose himself for a few seconds, and then you are dead if you are slower than he is.

If NLOS are "easy to intercept" then why are UAS everywhere on the modern battlefield?  They are not "easy" to intercept when used in large numbers.  We are talking systems that are going to skim treelines and hills until they lock and hit.  They will only need a shot/kill ratios of around 50% - at $210k a pop, to overwhelm the costs of the armored systems they are hitting.  And there are rumours in this war of Javelin coming in at 80-90%...which is nuts.  As to walking mines, the lack of imagination I find baffling.  So if someone plants a set of UGV mines that can move and get under a tank to kill it from below.  They can be hidden everywhere so until they move you likely will not detect them.  Then they wait until the armour/AFVs are nice and close, and suddenly you have got explosive cockroaches all scuttling at you.  We have no counter to that.  This is like the Battle of Yonkers in WWZ, all those fancy guns that can shave a peach at 1500m are going to be useless.

Now to the underlined part - how can I not know where you are?  This is the biggest take away of this entire war.  A modern armored Battlegroup is about 5-10kms long on the march, when one takes into account F/A1/A2 and B echelons.  Given the ISR environment shaping up, I will know exactly where you are and very likely where you are going to be, because I can also see the terrain and shape the space.  So 1 million dumb mines are a complete waste of resources when a few thousand can be prepositioned, re-position if they need to.  Best case is you spot them before they swarm you, at which point your move is completely stalled until you can figure out a counter.

So this was your response to "AFVs are vulnerable to artillery".  Well I would point to the steady stream of evidence coming out of this war and the simple fact that artillery is doing 80-90% of the killing.  Beyond that, this argument is symptomatic of what I have seen coming out of the "community", it basically buries the head in the sand.

Just going to jump to the end here.  So this is sticking to old metrics.  Light infantry move faster operationally but lack punching power of heavy.  Well guess what? They found their punching power.

So out of all of that we have bad assumptions, underplaying risks and over-playing capability.  This is pretty consistent with what has been coming out of the "heavy community" mainstream since last spring.  So instead of having an actual analysis and assessment of where heavy is going, we are instead being told that this entire war is an anomaly.  The UA, who have demonstrated an amazing ability to learn on this battlefield and in many way are ahead of any western doctrine are "doing it wrong."  I propose that they are doing it exactly right for wherever warfare is heading and the fact that they are winning is clear evidence. 

The analysis you provide is directly in line with what mainstream assessments came up with at the beginning of this war.  Based on the rules as we understood them, Russia should have won this war.  It had massive advantages in mass.  Oh that is right "they suck" and the UA just got lucky. 

Or, and everyone say it with me now, the fundamental components of warfare are shifting.  And this is driving an evolution on how wars will be fought.  Historically those that get with the program quickly have advantage for the next war.  Or we can cling to "tradition" and get our asses handed to us.

Or in one sentence: "Generals always fight the last war."