How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

Marshall's dubious claims very quickly became accepted opinio communis among historians of other periods, like Goldsworthy's Roman Army at War, without actualy checking credentials of it. One of prime examples of how not to apply historical analogies.

https://acoup.blog/2023/03/31/michael-taylor-on-john-keegans-the-face-of-battle-a-retrospective/

This war and ample visual evidence from actual combat perhaps finally put an end to those debates.

The way we sometimes get three video feeds, and two detailed accounts of a single small unit action continues to blow my mind. After the war it will probably even be possible to assemble close to that level of detail fro BOTH side of the same action in many cases.

[Armorgunner]

The 50 or so, CV 90 Sweden is sending. Seems confirmed to be the "C" modell. Wich has 5 tons of extra ceramic armor. And is one of the most protected CV 90 variants in the world today. And if Sweden send 50 CV 90, it´s all of the "C" modells (42 in totall) Sweden have! and probably some  ARV, Command, and FOV versions, without addon armor? Of the SPAAG variant with PS-95 Radar, there is 3 uppdated to the "C" standard. So maybe they go to, really hope so! 

The drawback of all Swedish CV 90´s, is that it has dated Thermals (on the level of Leo 2A4, and M1A1). But at least they have one! And they have "Hunter killer ability" And they are in good condition, so I think there is hard training right now. If not already in Ukraine? The 40 mm Bofors with APFSDS penetrates more than 160 mm of RHA.

And the progammable 3P round, is extremely effective against anything but tanks! If progammed to detonate in front of a Russian T-tank in burst mode. It probably make the T-tank blinde, destroying all thermal, sighting, and visionports. When several thousands of tungsten pellets is sprayed against it! Airbursting Wagner rapist cowards, hiding behind obstacles is what this round is made for! Or if they are hiding behind a concrete wall, go throw the wall, and then detonate in the room!

 

 

I just hope the 50 CV 90, will help Ukraine to take back as much territory as possibly! Togheter with all other equipment they got from the west.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Armorgunner

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

Marshall's dubious claims very quickly became accepted opinio communis among historians of other periods, like Goldsworthy's Roman Army at War, without actualy checking credentials of it. One of prime examples of how not to apply historical analogies.

https://acoup.blog/2023/03/31/michael-taylor-on-john-keegans-the-face-of-battle-a-retrospective/

This war and ample visual evidence from actual combat perhaps finally put an end to those debates.

I have long since abandoned Marshall's analysis as flawed.  First of all, it just didn't make sense based on what I know about combat.  The_Capt put it well enough that the bigger problem was to get soldiers to fire effectively and to STOP shooting.  The Germans cited one of the biggest shortcomings of the MG42, for example, was green gunners would burn through all of their ammo too quickly and too ineffectively.  The same was said of Russian units armed with PPSh drum mags in that they'd "spray and pray" then have nothing left to do but "pray".  On the other side, the bolt action rifle was determined by everybody to be holding back the effectiveness of a unit because the soldiers couldn't fire fast enough.

So on and so forth.

It's been a very long time since I looked into Marshall's methodology to remind myself of how flawed it was.  But we CMers know that at the end of an intense firefight there is often some units that are out of ammo and others that are reasonably well stocked.  Why?  Not because some units were more likely to shoot than others, but because some units found themselves needing to do so more than others.  Ammo usage, therefore, aggregate ammo usage is not a really good indicator of how likely an individual soldier is to shoot or not shoot.

Steve

[Lethaface]

14 hours ago, Zveroboy1 said:

Another pet peeve: human waves attacks.

I don't even know how you would describe what Russians and Wagner in particular are doing when they send these squad or platoon sized elements forward with barely any support at all but for me that's not really what a human wave attack is. Soviets in front of Moscow sending companies or whole battalions of conscripts yelling hurrah at German positions (instant cmbb nostalgia) en masse or Iraq-Iran war okay.

I think the correct term is repeated 'forlon hope' type attacks.

[dan/california]

I realize we see a lot of tape of these drones because using them generates video more or less automatically, and nobody post their misses. Even so we are seeing a LOT of video of these things hitting Russian targets.

The above implies persistent ISR and enough of the FPV drones to essentially smash everything that moves. Even if that is only in localized high priority areas...

Edited April 20, 2023 by dan/california

[panzermartin]

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

That theory has a lot of issues.  First off, there have been questions as to its overall validity and application in WW2 itself.  Did it take into account the PTO or non/low-US theatres such as Burma?  Was the phenomenon isolated or more generalized?

Then there is context.  In WW2 you had masses of US “citizen soldiers”.  These were people who had been living normal lives who got suddenly pulled into this war en masse.  Was the phenomenon of “not shooting” endemic to them alone?  While forces that had been in the war longer or more intimately involved in their own countries did not see this happen.  For example, I sincerely doubt members of the French Resistance or partisans in Eastern Europe were avoiding lethal force at a high rate.

Did US forces in combat see their “murder aversion” change over time? Warfare throughout history demonstrates that it gets pretty normal to kill, pretty fast.  

How does this phenomenon stack up against other wars in history?  Am I to believe that Roman legions were only “stabbing to kill” 20% of the time? How about the Mongols?

Then the modern era.  We suddenly went from high percentages of not shooting to kill to murderous lust from WW2 to Vietnam?  I know in modern wars that we did not see mass aversion to lethal force - quite the opposite, we had to rein it in.  So what changed?  Was it sugar, tv and video games?  Or was the initial study flawed?

From my own experience.  19-20 year old kids amped up an adrenaline -  scared and angry at the same time, will go from “0 to Murder” in seconds and sleep soundly that night.  It usually only takes one person to start shooting first and then the rest jump in.  The challenge is to get them to stop shooting, or get them shooting at the right thing.  That is why we spend so much time training them.  I have never seen a widespread phenomenon of an aversion to apply lethal force, from any side, of the wars I have been involved in.

Finally given our biological make up, this theory also does not compute.  All primates (with only one or two exceptions) are murderous brutal little monsters.  Our closest evolutionary relatives are some of the most vicious creatures in nature.  The idea that mankind was somehow blessed with a higher morale standard is laughable given our history.  We impose a lot of programming and frameworks just to get us to not kill each other in a peacetime setting, let alone open warfare.

I am not sold on the whole idea to be honest.

Good points and I have asked myself some of these questions. We had bloody merciless war since ancient times, with soldiers ripping the guts of people with pointy things, have we really changed at all? I try to resist the idea that war is implemented in human nature, but sometimes I can't find a good counter argument. 

Still, I admit I dont feel very comfortable with the edited morbid videos, the music even if I understand its for raising morale or propaganda. Apart from the smiling Nazis posing after executions, I don't think there was a lot of intention from each side to ridicule their victims or glorify the kill back then. Or perhaps it deliberately went less documented.  

[Battlefront.com]

54 minutes ago, Armorgunner said:

The drawback of all Swedish CV 90´s, is that it has dated Thermals (on the level of Leo 2A4, and M1A1). But at least they have one!

This is a point that often gets missed by the tech minded and laymen commentators alike.  While it is important to recognize the relative benefit of newer tech vs. older tech, there needs to be more emphasis on "good enough" tech vs. "not good enough tech".  Hearing someone say "yeah, but we're only giving Ukrainians 1990s or 2000s tech, which was very good for its day" really misses the point when the Russians are increasingly relying upon 1960s and 1970s tech that wasn't good even when it was new.

I once heard a US battalion commander make fun of his own rifleman for sticking pounds and pounds of tech onto their rifles.  He said he could hit targets in combat situations sufficiently without all the "bling" weighing him down.  The relevant point here is that at some point a system is sufficiently lethal enough to do the job it needs to do.  Improving it is desirable, of course, but if you already overmatch your opponent then it's headed towards a point of diminishing returns to the extent that the enemy isn't keeping up with its improvements. 

This is the difference between Russia today in this war and China in a possible future conflict.  Russia is overmatched by aging NATO equipment, China probably isn't.  Ukraine can win with older tech.

Steve

[Haiduk]

11 minutes ago, dan/california said:

The above implies persistent ISR and enough of the FPV drones to essentially smash everything that moves. Even if that is only in localized high priority areas...

These drones are assembling in Ukraine in numerous quantities for donates. 

For example, here is a part of 500  FPV drones batch, named GOIDA as a mockery of known Russian call "Goida!" on the mass meeting, calling to rise at "holy war with evil West".

And there are many similar drones have been assembling now. 

     

Edited April 20, 2023 by Haiduk

[Lethaface]

9 hours ago, panzermartin said:

 I've watched quite a few of those close action videos posted from both sides and I'm coming to the conclusion that modern soldiers have become even less densesitized firing at the enemy than what was described in the book "on killing". Some of you might have read about it. There was a theory that in WW2 most soldiers didn't fire their guns at all or didn't shoot to kill but mostly injure the enemy. That changed the coming decades, particularly from wiki :

 

 

"As a result of Marshall's work, modern military training was modified to attempt to override this instinct, by:

• using man-shaped targets instead of bullseye targets in marksmanship practice
• practicing and drilling how soldiers would actually fight
• dispersing responsibility for the killing throughout the group
• displacing responsibility for the killing onto an authority figure, i.e., the commanding officer and the military hierarchy (see the Milgram experiment)

By the time of the United States involvement in the Vietnam War, says Grossman, 90 % of U.S. soldiers would fire their weapons at other people.

He also says the act of killing is psychologically traumatic for the killer, even more so than constant danger or witnessing the death of others.

Grossman further argues that violence in television, movies and video games contributes to real-life violence by a similar process of training and desensitization."

I know the brutality and hate of this conflict may have surpassed any training needed to reach those levels and not sure if those videos represent the general rule but there is something in this war that I haven't seen before. From that video with the russian drone dropping a grenade to an injured Ukranian pleading for his life to the close Call of duty action trench clearing videos I find it disturbing to see perfect killing machines, or find that people from both sides enjoy the video clips with techno and dance music.

I mean, how normal is that? 

Normal is relative. If you live in war, normal is different compared to when you don't live in war. Regardless, (accidentally) killing people will usually be a traumatic experience for every person with a 'normal' functional psyche although it can be 'treated', either by the person itself or with support, so that the traumatic experience doesn't become a chronic problem.

People engaged in brutal disturbing violence during wars usually have some mental condition, which either existed before they engaged in war or developed during. They will probably never become 'normal' again, if they ever were normal. Psychotherapy might help them deal with the issue. 
This by the way isn't 'new'. People have been brutally killing eachother since we evolved from apes.  

[chrisl]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

The way we sometimes get three video feeds, and two detailed accounts of a single small unit action continues to blow my mind. After the war it will probably even be possible to assemble close to that level of detail fro BOTH side of the same action in many cases.

The interesting thing I find about that video in particular is that it appears to be a missile hanging from a quadcopter, and coming in pretty quickly, rather than the usual fixed wing that seems to be standard for the loitering munitions that come from the western MIC.

[_Morpheus_]

S-300 destroying "Shahed" near Odesa (19.04.2023)
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=553739053537098
 

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by _Morpheus_

[Haiduk]

Looks like "Honor" company is withdrawing for rotation. 

Serhiy Filimonov, the commander announced big movie similar to that was issued two days ago. Also he told the company for 1,5 months of fight lost 5 KIA and 40 WIA. Also he told in average "Honor" had been killing per 10 Wagners for a day.

He regrets he hadn't time to award his soldier "Myron" for killing of 8 Wagners in one fight - he could buy AR-10 rifle for him, but "Myron" was badly wounded on 4th of April. He will award sqaud leader "Tykhyi" with AR-10 + sight Vortex Razor 10x for defending of position (that was on the last video)

 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Haiduk

[Battlefront.com]

8 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Apart from the smiling Nazis posing after executions, I don't think there was a lot of intention from each side to ridicule their victims or glorify the kill back then. Or perhaps it deliberately went less documented.  

Of course it was less well documented.  First of all, the opportunity to document was inherently smaller than it is today.  Secondly, most Humans felt some sense that others wouldn't understand their beliefs and actions, therefore they kept it to their own circle.

If you think a group of people who considered themselves the "master race" while fighting "sub humans" didn't glorify their killing of their perceived enemy, you are definitely mistaken.

Dehumanizing the enemy is part of the way the Human mind convinces itself it's OK to kill.  Glorification is a way to live with the results better.

My sympathy for the Russians fighting this war was limited to the very beginning of the war when clearly so many were in Ukraine without wanting to be there.  That is no longer the case and hasn't been for almost a year.  The Russians are, at best, brainwashed.  If they weren't murdering, raping, plundering, and destroying innocents I'd maybe find some sympathy for them.  But they are, so it's hard to find. 

The only problem I have with Ukrainians celebrating their victories and humiliating their enemies is when it crosses the line to unnecessary brutality. 

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

11 minutes ago, chrisl said:

The interesting thing I find about that video in particular is that it appears to be a missile hanging from a quadcopter, and coming in pretty quickly, rather than the usual fixed wing that seems to be standard for the loitering munitions that come from the western MIC.

Ukraine has been experimenting with "duct tapping" various munitions onto POV drones since the start of the conflict.  This is because quadcopters are available in large quantities, fixed wing drones are not.  It seems the most common, and probably most effective, is to strap an RPG-7 round on and slam it into the target at a speed fast enough to trigger the rocket's detonator. 

Recently I've seen some attempts to increase the lethality of the RPG round by taping rifle or hand grenades around the warhead.  This likely offers an increased impact on bunkers, buildings, and other enclosed forms of shelter, but unlikely to do much against armored targets.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

33 minutes ago, dan/california said:

 

Interesting detail in the first of the two videos is the operator being told to "LAND NOW", presumably because the battery voltage is critically low.  Which means they flew this drone beyond it's ability to return home if it didn't find a target.  They might have attacked this particular target because that's all they could find rather than deliberately seeking it out.

Steve

[Centurian52]

On 4/7/2023 at 5:19 AM, Bulletpoint said:

It has fake written all over it. Who needs a daily update on which countries are in Nato? And a daily reminder of the number of SOF in Ukraine...

And the alleged photoshopping of casualty figures is likely only intended to make you believe that the original, "unphotoshopped" figures are true. Russia only lost around 40,000 KIA? I find that hard to believe after a year of total failwar.

The figure seems plausible to me. 35.5k-43.5k Russian KIA is consistent with estimates in the zone of 150k-200k Russian casualties, assuming that there are usually at least 2 or 3 WIA for every one KIA (my rule of thumb has been to divide casualty estimates by 4 to get a KIA estimate, or to multiply KIA estimates by 4 to get a casualty estimate). Honestly even the highest casualty estimates for both sides seem a little low to me, as someone who as spent so much time studying the world wars (obviously they are astronomically high to someone who has been looking mainly at the low intensity wars of the last couple decades), but I suppose they are actually fairly typical of medium sized wars such as this one.

More interesting than the raw KIA estimate is that the ratio of estimated Russian KIA to Ukrainian KIA is more than 2:1. Despite the wide range of casualty estimates I've seen (they really have been all over the board), Russian casualties seem to be consistently higher than Ukrainian casualties. But for the most part I've been seeing ratios in the range of 1.5:1 to 1.8:1 in Ukraine's favor. So breaching 2:1 is an exciting possibility. That's pushing out of the zone of peer v peer warfare, and into the zone of near-peer warfare, with Russia as the near-peer to Ukraine.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Centurian52

[Beleg85]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

have long since abandoned Marshall's analysis as flawed.  First of all, it just didn't make sense based on what I know about combat.  The_Capt put it well enough that the bigger problem was to get soldiers to fire effectively and to STOP shooting.  The Germans cited one of the biggest shortcomings of the MG42, for example, was green gunners would burn through all of their ammo too quickly and too ineffectively.  The same was said of Russian units armed with PPSh drum mags in that they'd "spray and pray" then have nothing left to do but "pray".  On the other side, the bolt action rifle was determined by everybody to be holding back the effectiveness of a unit because the soldiers couldn't fire fast enough.

So on and so forth.

It's been a very long time since I looked into Marshall's methodology to remind myself of how flawed it was.  But we CMers know that at the end of an intense firefight there is often some units that are out of ammo and others that are reasonably well stocked.  Why?  Not because some units were more likely to shoot than others, but because some units found themselves needing to do so more than others.  Ammo usage, therefore, aggregate ammo usage is not a really good indicator of how likely an individual soldier is to shoot or not shoot.

Steve

For me personally (and professionally-happened to write some articles on how massed combat was viewed through Eastern Roman military manuals back in academia times) the human averse to killing is fascinating topic. It is not directed by higher ethics (this layer exist, but let's face it- it's easily breacheable) but by more primitive, apish impulses- chiefly, danger of direct reciprocity. We are very, very social animals when in crowds, even at mirroring behaviour of persons we want to immediatelly kill. Take for examples these stories from Crimean or Civil War when soldiers armed to their teeth in lethal muskets suddenly started to pick stones or even snowballs (!) and within seconds deadly serious battle could turn into throwing contest. Something very similar we are witnessing now in "club war" on India/China border. Quite amazing that in XXI cent. both sides prefer to behave like Stone Era warriors, even developing their own creative tactics, marking champions from both sides (there was an article year ago about one Sikh soldier who get "touched" most enemies with his club) or agreeing on "safe spaces" where wounded can crawl.

It's deadly, lethaly serious, but also so silly in the same time. Homo sapiens are strange creatures.

[panzermartin]

41 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Dehumanizing the enemy is part of the way the Human mind convinces itself it's OK to kill.  Glorification is a way to live with the results better.

Yes thats a very good reason also. Takes away a lot of weight. I understand this. For the remote poster outside of this conflict I might feel he deserves less excuse.

Ukrainians though have all the reasons to feel like that, I admit, after all the war was imposed on them. Its not only them, there are also pro russian sites where the comments are very disturbing under videos and makes you wonder how many rats are out there. This board has been very restrained in contrast, depsite also having ukrainian posters. I still think I need to skip reading comments in twitter and elsewhere because I think its mental health deteriorating.  

[sross112]

8 hours ago, panzermartin said:

 I've watched quite a few of those close action videos posted from both sides and I'm coming to the conclusion that modern soldiers have become even less densesitized firing at the enemy than what was described in the book "on killing". Some of you might have read about it. There was a theory that in WW2 most soldiers didn't fire their guns at all or didn't shoot to kill but mostly injure the enemy. That changed the coming decades, particularly from wiki :

0thers have said it pretty good about the Marshall Study, 0n Combat, and 0n Killing. It has been awhile since I have read them, but the other caveat that Marshall and Grossman had was that it depended on the unit as well. Airborne, Marines, Rangers, etc were pretty much inversely proportional in their participation. Those that joined these "elite" formations were ones that wanted to fight, were aggressive by nature, and generally received a much higher level and intensity of training. Experience also calculates in (in December of 44 the Big Red 0ne was a different animal than a division fresh off the boat).

So overall, there are a plethora of variables that can and do affect the percentage of participation in combat. There is no set rule or formula that can be applied across the board. Kudos to Marshall and others for their work, but when boiled down it becomes an anecdote or rule of thumb that will probably be wrong more times than it will be right.

These are just my opinions with no scientific backing, but I believe the main factors for how a small unit performs in combat are Motivation/Morale, Training/Experience, and leadership. I agree that the UA in general shows a high level of motivation, especially in units like the one in the video (Da Vinci's Wolves). Throw all the atrocities and war crimes on top of the basic motivation to defend their country and people and it is pretty easy to see higher levels for the UA. The leadership from that NC0 made a world of difference as well. Take him out of the scenario and it could have easily went the other way. At the same time a senior NC0 or officer needs to have a conversation with him that he'll never forget about how the Russians were able to approach to grenade range in daylight on a flat open field without being seen and engaged. 

The Training/Experience factor is something that I have payed a lot of attention to over the course of this war. There has been a pretty steady rise in the professionalism of a lot of the UA units over the last year. While watching bunches of videos I found myself cringing a lot due to the lack of muzzle discipline, spray and pray marksmanship, and poorly sited and prepared fighting positions. For example I don't know how many times I've subconsciously panicked  when seeing a soldier sitting or standing with their muzzle in the dirt or mud. My pulse starts to quicken and all I can think of is that the UA version of Gunny Mendoza is going to come around the corner, see that, and promptly make a popsicle out of that soldier with his rifle as the stick.

There does seem to be a trend though of seeing less and less of that untrained/undisciplined behavior. I have high hopes for this summer and believe the UA will impress us by seriously out-classing the RA when they kick off their offensive.

[Battlefront.com]

OK, I finally had a chance to watch the Honor Company video.  I can see why you guys are all commenting on it.  That was quite a video.

I am sure combat vets will have far more informed things to say about this than I, but I think this is an excellent example of a well led squad and overall well commanded sector of frontage.  Things I noticed:

The unit functioned effectively in response to the leader's commands, even if a couple of times the guys responded a little reluctantly at first.  Soldiers moved out of relative safety to position themselves in more advantageous positions for defeating the attack.  It paid off as the Russians were caught in cross fire and were wiped out.  I presume the Russians didn't do sufficient ISR because it sure looked like they had no idea this unit was where it was.

The leader quickly and efficiently made his unit aware of where the threats were and who should be doing what, not only coordinating within their own unit but also coordinating with (at least) 2 units by radio.  Nobody panicked, nobody froze up.  He was able to get his men to calm down their outgoing fire when the situation called for it and directed his men to start preparing for another engagement (distributing existing mags and tasking a specific soldier with reloading empty ones).

The SA and coordination extended to the point of being assured the attack was thoroughly defeated and getting under cover from artillery was the right thing to do.

 

A couple of other things that struck me.  First is how difficult it is for an experienced soldier under no apparent incoming fire to hit targets at relatively close range in fairly optimal conditions.  The leader successfully dropped 3 Russians, but had difficulty landing additional hits to ensure the targets were dead.  He tracked the one crawling away and took more careful and aimed shots that (presumably) eliminated the possibility of threat.

Second, this is exactly the opposite of what I've seen in so many other videos of Russians getting slaughtered because they don't take an active role in defending their positions.  As noted above, the leader put himself and at least 3 of his men into more exposed positions because it offered the best opportunity for defeating the attack.

Third, this is why small units need good communications and working relationships!  The guys operating the radios effectively controlled the chaos and coordinated the response in a way that the Russians had zero chance of countering.

Obviously this is one unit and one engagement, so we can't draw any conclusions about the overall state of Ukraine's fighting forces from just this video.  However, this was some quality low level fighting from my academic armchair perspective.

Steve

 

[Battlefront.com]

22 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

For me personally (and professionally-happened to write some articles on how massed combat was viewed through Eastern Roman military manuals back in academia times) the human averse to killing is fascinating topic. It is not directed by higher ethics (this layer exist, but let's face it- it's easily breacheable) but by more primitive, apish impulses- chiefly, danger of direct reciprocity. We are very, very social animals when in crowds, even at mirroring behaviour of persons we want to immediatelly kill. Take for examples these stories from Crimean or Civil War when soldiers armed to their teeth in lethal muskets suddenly started to pick stones or even snowballs (!) and within seconds deadly serious battle could turn into throwing contest. Something very similar we are witnessing now in "club war" on India/China border. Quite amazing that in XXI cent. both sides prefer to behave like Stone Era warriors, even developing their own creative tactics, marking champions from both sides (there was an article year ago about one Sikh soldier who get "touched" most enemies with his club) or agreeing on "safe spaces" where wounded can crawl.

It's deadly, lethaly serious, but also so silly in the same time. Homo sapiens are strange creatures.

There was a famous quote from the Phony War (Western Front 1939) where some general visited the French lines and was taken to a position where they could see German soldiers playing football.  When the general asked why they weren't shooting at the Germans, the response was "well, they aren't shooting at us".

Steve

[chrisl]

51 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Interesting detail in the first of the two videos is the operator being told to "LAND NOW", presumably because the battery voltage is critically low.  Which means they flew this drone beyond it's ability to return home if it didn't find a target.  They might have attacked this particular target because that's all they could find rather than deliberately seeking it out.

Steve

That's sort of expected usage of loitering munitions.  The purpose designed ones, like the switchblade, have similar behavior: once launched, they're not coming back and the only question is what kind of target they're going to hit.  If you know there's a target rich environment near the limit of your battery range, it lets you hit things farther away from yourself and keep yourself in a relatively safer environment further from the action.

[Battlefront.com]

13 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

I still think I need to skip reading comments in twitter and elsewhere because I think its mental health deteriorating.  

I skim for information that might be relevant to the posting (there are often good insights about a specific detail or some broader context) and completely ignore all the pointless pro and anti comments.  They serve no purpose except to provoke an emotional response that I do not need any more of.

Steve

[Haiduk]

Epic turret tossing or how Perseus (name of BMP-2M on the hull) became Icarus 

Video from Vodiane area

 

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, chrisl said:

That's sort of expected usage of loitering munitions.  The purpose designed ones, like the switchblade, have similar behavior: once launched, they're not coming back and the only question is what kind of target they're going to hit.  If you know there's a target rich environment near the limit of your battery range, it lets you hit things farther away from yourself and keep yourself in a relatively safer environment further from the action.

Correct, but these are not purpose built loitering munitions   These have the ability to "return to base" if they don't find something to smash into.  Provided, of course, the drone doesn't exceed it's return range, which was the case for the video I pointed to.  Either the operator presumed (or assumed) there was something juicy to hit, and made do with a tractor, or they had enough of these lying around that committing to targeting a tractor was deemed worth doing.

Steve