How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[dan/california]

4 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

You mean having no air force? Maybe the standards we see in within UA have a lot to do with the lack of standards their enemy has. And that is not to disrespect the small units fighting on the ground for the UA. We are all impressed beyond belief. However, the amount of firepower NATO could bring to bear in a professional manner is orders of magnitude greater than what the UA can provide even with NATO assistance. You can tell, I am Ped off and frustrated. Not at you dan. Playing armchair general is fun in peace time when everything is hypothetical. Every time a post to this forum is made a UA troop is dying within the same timeframe. Maybe not exactly, but you get my point. 

I ranted about it on twitter until they kicked me off. What I think should happen to every upper level person in the Russian government is unprintable, And I think NATO's air force should be committed to this war. Neither seems in the cards, so I just try stay in the lanes Steve has set out.The stated goal here is more analytic, so I try to comply. This is literally the best place on the internet to keep track of what is going on, unless you have access to classified data.

The three things you can do that matter the most are write your Congressperson, send a little money, and support Ukraine on your social media of choice.

[Battlefront.com]

13 minutes ago, Grigb said:

We need to keep in mind that in Soviet/RU practice the overall number of anything is not as important as the number of things that a) works, b) have competent personnel c) have enough supply.

And the RU command has a tendency of grouping working units together and fighting with such groupings. So, while 10% losses may not appear to be significant, they might be terrible if RU lost its finest working arty units. And the shock value would be really terrifying. 

Yup.  It also comes down to how those casualties are distributed.  If your sector had only 9 guns covering your positions, and you lost 50% of them, it really doesn't matter if the neighboring sector has all their guns because they don't help your situation at all.

If a battery took heavy casualties to PGMs, it is not hard to imagine the remaining guns being ordered to displace out of concern that their current positions may be compromised.

I really hope we get some objective clarity on the artillery situation sometime down the road, but for now we have observations and speculation only.  The observation is that Russian artillery is not performing very well in places, but we really don't fully understand why.  The good news is that Ukrainian commanders likely know and that means they can (hopefully) keep Russian artillery from playing the role Russia was relying upon it performing.

Steve

 

[kevinkin]

22 minutes ago, dan/california said:

The stated goal here is more analytic

I understand that. My mind tends to think of the big picture or try find perspective from past combat. I prefer to look through a telescope, not a microscope. And definingly not through rose colored glasses. 

[Harmon Rabb]

57 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Because what Russia needs is Ukraine getting 500 Abrams, and NATO's air force showing up for a long weekend to shatter what is left of the Russian army. I mean I think that needs to happen, but I really doubt anyone in Russia does. There may be one or two coup plotters who are hoping for the worst possible defeat, but that is about it.

Since you put it that way.

 

[chrisl]

10 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

I understand that. My mind tends to think of the big picture or try find perspective from past combat. I prefer to look through a telescope, not a microscope. And definingly not through rose colored glasses. 

You can look through both.  

And they actually both do the same thing - they take something that fills a small angle of your unaided view and make it fill a large angle.

[Fenris]

More (spectacular) counter battery fire, this time NE of Bakhmut

 

[Grigb]

9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is a good example of why Ukrainian sources need to be treated carefully too.   A member of the 47th Brigade that was there said they suffered 2xKIA.  Further, when the Russians poked around up close it was clear there were at least 3xKIA, two of which were badly burned.  So whatever the case really is, Donik is wrong that there were no Ukrainian KIAs.

This is precisely why I have yet to accept KIA - RU were poking around. It appears that there has been a secret directive for some months to plant dead bodies at locations of recent famous battles. It appears that RU opted to minimize propaganda damage from UKR attacks by exaggerated UKR losses.

The best example is the RDK raid, in which RU literally placed and videotaped six dead bodies before spreading images and videos across the RU segment of the internet. 

Obviously, I may be mistaken. But we must all recognize that we can no longer trust images and videos taken in areas where RU were poking around. 

[kevinkin]

3 minutes ago, chrisl said:

You can look through both.  

And they actually both do the same thing - they take something that fills a small angle of your unaided view and make it fill a large angle.

Yeah, but they are observing different phenomenon. For example, cell division vs. the red shift. BYW, a own a research grade microscope and telescope. I get more use out of the microscope due to local light pollution. However, 

https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/StateParks/FindAPark/CherrySpringsStatePark/Pages/Stargazing.aspx

Well worth the investment but it's a hike to get to. 

 

[dan/california]

A nice happy video to end the evenig.

[chrisl]

22 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

Yeah, but they are observing different phenomenon. For example, cell division vs. the red shift. BYW, a own a research grade microscope and telescope. I get more use out of the microscope due to local light pollution. However, 

https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/StateParks/FindAPark/CherrySpringsStatePark/Pages/Stargazing.aspx

Well worth the investment but it's a hike to get to. 

 

I design and build both for a living .

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, Grigb said:

We need to keep in mind that in Soviet/RU practice the overall number of anything is not as important as the number of things that a) works, b) have competent personnel c) have enough supply.

And the RU command has a tendency of grouping working units together and fighting with such groupings. So, while 10% losses may not appear to be significant, they might be terrible if RU lost its finest working arty units. And the shock value would be really terrifying. 

I was thinking this also, and with the added thought that the nominal 10% wasnt across the board but affecting locally attached fires units. Say 10% of the total but 80% of the local fires (total guess work). So locally not arty overwatch, plus all the other units now know of peer batteries getting gnarled.

[Aragorn2002]

11 hours ago, Harmon Rabb said:

AFU PzH2000 crew in action and enjoying some java.

Life can be good.

[kevinkin]

7 minutes ago, chrisl said:

I design and build both for a living .

That's very cool. I never heard of one outfit that does both commercially. Perhaps in a defense arena? I was involved in the early stages of IR microscopy when it moved from university to industry. 

[chrisl]

1 minute ago, kevinkin said:

That's very cool. I never heard of one outfit that does both commercially. Perhaps in a defense arena? I was involved in the early stages of IR microscopy when it moved from university to industry. 

Civil aerospace, which is why most of my longer posts relate to space based ISR or photosensors and the related.  And trying to spin some stuff into biomedical.  There are companies that sell to both - if you go to bio conferences and space conferences it's the same people selling AO systems, but one is to look at the sky and the other into biological spaces like your eyeball.

[kevinkin]

58 minutes ago, chrisl said:

it's the same people selling AO systems, but one is to look at the sky and the other into biological spaces like your eyeball.

Makes sense. I have been away from the field for a long time. While the principles of observation are very similar, few are professionals at both microscopy and astronomy - at least in the interpretation of the observations. Any can kid stare into a microscope and look at pond water. If interested, send me PM. This is now way off topic. 

Edited June 15, 2023 by kevinkin

[panzermartin]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

It shouldn't have been directed at anybody.  You came out swinging, took a charge at windmills like Don Quixote, you got rightfully challenged, you flailed about, and have made no progress with your original quest to prove yourself some sort of savoir for a problem that doesn't exist.  it's been an annoying and completely unnecessary distraction from meaningful discussions, so it would be nice if you would just knock it off.

In case you still think you had some cause to accuse people here of being in a copium filled echo chamber, let me break it down for you with an example.

A room full of people are having a debate about weather.  Someone says they should discuss the weather outside.  Factual observations show that it is sunny and dry, but nobody knows the temperature.  There is a discussion about what the temperature might be, so there is a discussion about the time of year, the recent past weather patterns, historical patterns, etc.  The discussion is focused on this aspect because everybody agrees that objectively it is sunny and dry outside.  There is some debate about the temperatures, however the prevailing thinking is that it appears to be very warm.  Debate, predictions, and other things are based on this thinking.

Someone then decides that people aren't questioning things enough.  Maybe it isn't really warm out.  So he takes it upon himself to prove everybody else wrong.  He makes a statement that maybe it isn't warm, but is in fact freezing cold.  No new facts, no new insights, just being contrarian.  The group accepts the challenge and refutes it by debating the statement on its merits.  The contrarian has no counter to this so instead of conceding that he is wrong tries to make it about the group's supposed hostility to new ideas.

This is what you did.  It's only a half step better than what the "whatabout" people do.  They would be more likely to say it's raining or nighttime, but in the end the accusations of "echo chamber" and "hostility to different perspectives" is exactly the same.

Learn from your mistakes and stop digging the hole you made for yourself any deeper than it already is.

Steve

For the record, the commissar comment wasn't for anyone else but Grigb exclusively for his strict suggestion to Butschi to stop supporting his "friend" his "lie" and his bold points with phrases like "end of story", meaning he had absolutely the last word. 

I'm sorry I have been annoying and contrarian, it's not from a caprice but out of my desire for "justice" and "balance". I would do the same in a pro russian forum, I think one of the most dangerous things in society is being collectively in agreement or sometimes fixation to a certain point, even when there is not enough evidence to prove us 100% right. And how could that be, given the fog of war and the propaganda from both sides?

I've been here since the Iraq war and I had some familiar experiences. There was a trigger happy board full of testosterone and we know what happened. God knows how many personal attacks I received. In the real world, WMDs were never found, half a million of people died, Middle East is still a mess, refugees are getting drown in the Mediterranean as we speak... and US was led to discredit and isolation, and that even might have played a role in the rise of Trump, the current mess In Ukraine etc...

I feel our Europe is in deep trouble with this war, and constantly undermining Russia is a dangerous habit I won't support here, but point taken I will try to be more constructive in the future. 

 

 

[Yet]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

 

I really hope we get some objective clarity on the artillery situation sometime down the road, but for now we have observations and speculation only.  The observation is that Russian artillery is not performing very well in places, but we really don't fully understand why

nailed it!

I this forum would be alot less fuzz if we all try a bit better to pinpoint if something is a fact, an observation, an integrated view a speculation or an opinion.

views, speculations and opinions are sometimes word-wrapped as facts. when its unclear to anyone: ask. 

We all make a 10000 pieces puzzle, some people already know that is gonna be a boat and say: look! this is wood from somewhere at the deck of the boat! other people say: to me is juist a brown puzzlepiece, until it is at its place with enough neigbours to make a clear picture.  

Both are right, everyone should try to understand that everyone sees the same pieces, but some people have seen more pieces than others and/or are quicker to place a piece (because they have more puzzle experience?)

If someone shouts: "this is the deck of the boat!" they mean: this is a brown piece that has the texture and colors that makes me assume that in the big picture of a boat this could very well be a piece of the deck and therefore we could place it in the right corner of the puzzle for now and see if we can find some more neighbouring pieces to be able to get a clear picture. However: we are a forum, so dont expect people to write like that.

[DesertFox]

Yep! Agreed. And I like his understatement.

 

 

[cesmonkey]

 

[DesertFox]

Luring them to come out of hiding and forcing them to counterattack seems to work pretty well.

 

 

[DesertFox]

Spontaneous self-demilitarisation...Love it!

 

 

[Grigb]

Let's talk about Maryinka and that video from 79th Brigade

I prepared a draft transcript of the first ten minutes, which covered one battle. But, in order for you to understand what is going on, I created a map and a brief summary. Obviously, despite my best efforts, I could easily misunderstand something.

UKR appears to have discovered an enemy force moving from Donetsk via road using a drone equipped with infrared imaging. There were four vehicles: one or two tanks and two or three BMPs. It's unknown where the infantry force came from; they might have dismounted from the BMPs. It appears to be an Assault group, which is usually approximately squad size, but this varies. It may begin with a strengthened squad of up to 15 soldiers, but by the time it reaches the target, there may only be 5-6 men left.

The defending UKR troops waited among the ruins. According to radio traffic, there were two to three fire teams stretched out in front. The UKR HQ directed fire teams at RU AFVs. The fire teams used RPGs to disable at least two AFVs; the remainder fled; however one fire team was hit (at least one killed, one injured). Meanwhile, an RU assault group assaulted the corner. One fire team used small arms in an attempt to pin them down, while a second fire team guided by HQ moved to assist the first and showered RU soldiers with GP-25s. After that, the UKR arty finished the job, and the lone RU survivor fled.

There are mostly three guys at HQ -  skinny bearded guy [at 00:57]. I suspect he is CO. Bulkier bearded guy [at 02:11] I suspect he is XO. He is guiding fire teams. And cleanly shaved guy [06:42] I suspect he is FIST guy.

Some observations:

• Unlike the RU army, the UKR HQ does not appear to command and control fire squads. It's more like they guide and advise fire teams, although there is some degree of micromanagement - at one point, XO explicitly tells one fire team to grab AK and made aim shots like we do in CM with target order at something a unit hasn't seen yet.
• Both sides do not function in the traditional military configuration of platoon-company (I believe this is company headquarters). There are distributed attack teams/groups with radio links to HQ, and that's all there is to it. There is no reserve or another echelon nearby to continue the fight. This, I suppose, is due to the enormous threat of drone-adjusted arty. So, all help is a few kilometers away, and no one can come fast to help except a nearby team.

Now the transcript. Please keep in mind the footage is not strictly chronological:

Quote

00:00 Reporter reaction to arty shootouts – soldier explains that from the start of the war there are these constant shootouts  

00:15 Reporter in hideout: there is small arms firefight, we are 150 meters from RU troops at Maryinka

00:21 Reporter: From august that there were no reporters in [Maryinka] until now

00:24 Soldier: I reported (wrote) RU counterattack yearly in the morning - 1-2 tank and bmps

00:32 Drone footage: two guys say to radio - RU vehicles to the left, looks like 4 units, f*ck

00:42 FIST in front of screen: urgently move to reserve [line], in 30 seconds [arty] shootout

00:45 Drone footage of probably RU soldiers running at a tree line:

• FIST - you have your [arty] gun aimed at the target
• Radio Fire Team - enemy is running from tree line to here
• Radio Fire Team - it is where [old] platoon defensive position was. 

00:57  CO speaking UKR, says something like we may say their assault ended up in full failure.

01:00 Reporter asks Soldier [they are probably at hidden observation post] - how far are the RU? Soldier reply literally 25-30 [meters]

01:08 Reporter in front of the ruins: This is how Maryinka Church looks like now.

01:29 Reporter in the car: We are driving to Maryinka, our forces are coming there only at night without lights because at the daylight RU are constantly shooting. 79 brigade defends these ruins from august of last year. No reporters visited it from that time because it is too dangerous

02:04 HQ

• XO talks on radio: Thunder, Thunder, I am [unknown UKR word]
• somebody: do you detects them, do you see them?
• In the background sound of close hit, somebody  - that was their mortar
• XO to radio - send them 4 more rounds

02:20 Reporter bla-bla-bla, main points - we are at Command point [HQ] on one of the flanks of the brigade 79 that defends Maryinka from RU and Kadyrovcev, here they rest and also control battle

02:45 Drone footage:

• CO - Look at Donets route 6E
• inaudible UKR radio chatter
• CO - yes, yes, I understood, look at infantry, if something goes wrong, retreat, damn that infantry,
• inaudible UKR reply
• CO talk with somebody behind camera - may be they feel/detect our troops?
• CO to radio - yes, yes, I am plus this [I do not know what plus means in this context but probably - I agree, confirm]
• Radio - they are turning to the center of Maryinka
• CO to radio: max combat readiness, to any...[sound of close explosion] here it is, cyka;

03:24 Drone footage of RU vehicle:

• CO - RU vehicle to the left, it is after tree line to our side
• somebody else - there are 4 units
• CO - f*ck [looks like repeat of yearly footage]
• CO says to radio - it is where is the smoke, behind houses

03:45

• XO says to radio looking at screen: It [probably RU tank] passed the Zil [name of landmark], passed the tree line and driving through our field [continuation] Do you see the vehicles at old field
• Radio- yes, see it is coming,
• XO - f*ck him with RPG, F*ck [him]!

4:00 Drone footage:

• XO - She [probably RU vehicle] is coming through where tanks were hit, in the swamp where you destroyed them, inaudible UKR radio answer [drone shows one hit]
• Somebody point finger at screen - one is f*cked, yes, quiet, quiet, they are leaving, vehicles are leaving, look at infantry
• radio Fire Team reply - I do will not see the infantry
• FIST guy why? you will see them! Look at vehicles, look how they burn beautifully
• XO -  they are retreating, retreating toward tree line and Zil;
• Radio second Fire Team - Six, to what tree line they are retreating to? Somebody - Toward.. [another vehicle hit] YEA! Yes, 1 vehicle hit, [it is] second [vehcile hit], 2 boxes [tank/BMPs] are hit, [last one] retreating toward Zil, [footage of RPG/arty hits] look at that

05:10

• Radio First Fireteam: BMPs is shooting at us
• XO replies yes, I got it - just in case the box is moving perpendicular the tree line where two old hit tanks are

05:25 Drone footage

• XO to radio - vehicles are coming to your positions by the road, load RPG and f*ck them with RPG
• somebody pointing finger at screen - one is here and one is there
• [repeat of footage] FIST Guy - urgently [move] to reserve [line] in 30 seconds [arty]shootout...you have your [arty] gun aimed at the target, blyat, f*kc these launchers
• XO talking to radio - give [me] your 9.2 [some kind of code] and what about [your] people?
• Radio Fire Team 1 reply - 1 200 [killed] 1 200 [wounded]
• XO to radio - cyka... who is 300?
• Somebody behind - can you look at for a sec...

06:00 FIST guy at screen:

• Radio Fire Team 1 - I am talking to you, I am the only one who is left [alive] [looks like that wounded soldier is the soldier who is talking through radio with guy with radio]
• somebody behind - let this lone guy to continue to work;
• FIST Guy - I have infantry pushing through at front of [land mark is cut] I need to aim and adjust UAG there, please do not listen to anyone, just aim, blyat and give me opportunity to work there... plus 20 for range and send 5 rounds there
• Fist guy to radio - Are you zinking [probably shooting with small arms] reeds?
• Radio Fireteam 2 - Plus, yes, we are zinking!
• XO guy to radio probably to unknown Fire team - tell me from where small arms fire is coming toward [landmark is cut]
• Radio unknown Fireteam - by the sound [it is coming from] from 1 hour [direction]
•  XO guy both to radio and to somebody in the room - presumably from red house
• FIST guy to radio [to somebody else] - do it one more time
• Radio unknown Fire Team to XO - by the sound it is there
• XO to radio - Plus, I got you
• XO to somebody behind - so, are they aiming at red house?
• Somebody behind - yes
• XO -why it takes so long, cyka;

07:09 Radio and Laptop:

• XO - Red house, fire!
• FIST - Red house, fire, how copy?
• Radio Fire Team 1 - enemy is running from the tree line to here [repeating of footage]
• radio unknown Fireteam - it is where [old] platoon defensive position was;
• FIST - find where they could run in from tree line!
• Somebody looking at screen - here 4 enemy are coming! Where? Where? Here-here-here! [enemy soldiers infiltrating from treeline toward ruins]
• FIST - give [me] 5 fire, 5 fire!
• Somebody from radio - 20 seconds!
• XO- work, aimed fire from [your] Ak
• XO to everybody in the room - We need to help them, guys; there is one [soldier], there are two of them
• XO guy to Fireteam 1 - work, my [brother], work
• FIST to radio - aim right 20; more 20 to the right;
• XO to radio - [Nickname is cut] forward, forward 30, right 20.

08:06 Drone footage of ruins

• radio Fireteam 1 - friend, I worked with RPG, but do not know where, do not see it
• XO - do it one more time there with RPG
• CO - f*k knows what is what and where - ours or theirs, RPG, Drakons
• FIST to radio - be on duty and wait for a while;
• XO to radio - what is happening at [callsign is cut]? Radio Fire team 2- very close to him, will help him shortly
• XO - do it, do it, friend! Help [him] with [underbarel] GPshki [25]
• Radio Fire team 2 - I am getting it, helping, helping [callsign is cut]!

08:43 Drone footage

• Unknown - it is, it is, it hit [target
• inaudible chatter
• Unknown - look, look, that's it, [he is] dead!
• XO- 3 [rounds] fire
• FIST 3 [rounds] fire
• FIST to radio - running to you, running to you [nickname is cut] work, work; [drone footage of hit] - OOOO, Yeeees
• XO - they are leaving
• FIST - looks like 1 only [running away] all others are dead, your direction is clear so far.

09:19 Desk with radio

• Unkown Fireteam -  checked him, breathing slightly
• XO - do not panic, do not panic, look, look where is the wound, plaster it, bandage it, one should bandage, second should zink [firing] at sides 

 

[Tux]

2 hours ago, panzermartin said:

For the record, the commissar comment wasn't for anyone else but Grigb exclusively for his strict suggestion to Butschi to stop supporting his "friend" his "lie" and his bold points with phrases like "end of story", meaning he had absolutely the last word. 

I'm sorry I have been annoying and contrarian, it's not from a caprice but out of my desire for "justice" and "balance". I would do the same in a pro russian forum, I think one of the most dangerous things in society is being collectively in agreement or sometimes fixation to a certain point, even when there is not enough evidence to prove us 100% right. And how could that be, given the fog of war and the propaganda from both sides?

I've been here since the Iraq war and I had some familiar experiences. There was a trigger happy board full of testosterone and we know what happened. God knows how many personal attacks I received. In the real world, WMDs were never found, half a million of people died, Middle East is still a mess, refugees are getting drown in the Mediterranean as we speak... and US was led to discredit and isolation, and that even might have played a role in the rise of Trump, the current mess In Ukraine etc...

I feel our Europe is in deep trouble with this war, and constantly undermining Russia is a dangerous habit I won't support here, but point taken I will try to be more constructive in the future. 

 

 

I think the conflict in this thread might have arisen because there's a difference between politely reminding everyone that we don't know enough to be 100% certain and telling people that their conclusions are "copium" because of that fact.

"Copium" is a potent cocktail that leads to conclusions based largely on (very) selective reasoning, hope and a deep aversion to a particular alternative.  Copium is some structural steel bars welded over the top of your T-72 because 'Ukraine have Javelins; Javelins attack from above; I just can't bear the thought of how horribly vulnerable to Javelin attack I am in my tank; Steel is hard and can be used as armour; QED'.  Copium is "Intelligent Design".

The majority of the useful opinions and positions expressed on this thread are not copium-fuelled.  They are properly and more-or-less rationally built upon a firm base of relevant professional experience and critical analysis of both available data and historic trends.  That does not (and cannot) lead to a 'certain' conclusion but it can (and does) lead to a 'most likely' conclusion.  Implicit in the work done to establish such a 'most likely' conclusion should be an understanding of where the weaknesses in the assessment lie and it is welcomed when people politely remind everyone what those weaknesses are.  That is partly because it demonstrates an understanding and appreciation of the work done by the person who carried out the assessment in question.  It is even more welcome when someone steps in and offers an equally or even more well-founded alternative assessment and conclusion, especially if it challenges the previous 'most likely' case.  That's because it adds to the conversation and can be educational and important to think about.

So while I would agree that 'group-think' can be dangerous that doesn't mean it should be challenged for the sake of it; it should be challenged based on the merits of the position that is being 'group-thunk'.  One's confidence in a position/the imperative to challenge it should always be proportional/inversely proportional to the strength of the case made for it.  That leads to the fact that the position itself should actually be irrelevant when deciding whether it needs to be challenged.  If you really are concerned by the fact that positions in this thread are "constantly undermining Russia", rather than that they are poorly-constructed, then you are the one letting your aversion to that "habit" drive your thinking.  You are the one getting too close to the copium fumes.

Finally, if being collectively in agreement in the absence of 100% proof is one of the most dangerous things in society then we are all doomed, since there is no such thing as 100% proof.  I would argue that it is actually disagreement with the collective simply due to a lack of 100% proof which is far more dangerous, since it leads to indecisiveness and passivity in the face of important challenges. See the climate change "debate".  See any number of the "debates" that spilt all over the place in 2020-21.  See the crippling paralysis that struck the collective West when definitely-not-100%-proven-to-be-Russian "Little Green Men" appeared in Crimea in 2014.

Forget 100% proof.  Search for 'most likely'.  Understand why it is considered 'most likely'.  If you agree, cherish collective agreement.  If you disagree, then explain why and you will be thanked for it.

[The_Capt]

9 hours ago, Undaunted said:

The_Capt pointed out that when doing mine-breaching, you are supposed to keep going forward (often in a straight line?).  If so, how about making unmanned mine breaching vehicles?  Without a crew, it can be make more compact, meaning more armor/ERAs per volume, or maybe have a flat/boxer engine to make it super low profile.  And no one need to be evacuated when it got hit.

So what is supposed to happen if the breaching vehicle gets hit is to either abandon the breach completely - this is what it looks like they did in the end.  Or dismount any infantry and keep pushing straight down the same breaching lane.  One is going to lose vehicles but you can possibly simply bull push through trading vehicles for distance.

Do not get me wrong, this is all bad and the abandon option is used far more often.  As to unmanned systems, definitely a good idea but as far as I know heavy unmanned breaching systems really don’t exists.  What we are seeing in Ukraine is likely the first mechanized breaching operation in contact since the Gulf War (maybe a few other examples in side shows such as FRY but not like this), so a lot of theories are being tested.

What I suspect will happen, if it is not happening already, is we will be JDAMS-ing existing veh fleets - unmanning them and putting AI onboard.  A modern MBT for example is already driven by buttons and switches inputs, the only real human-dependent function left is the loader and that can (and has) be replaced.  So replacing crew with an AI box is a viable solution in the short term while they invent whatever comes next.

[Butschi]

1 hour ago, Tux said:

I think the conflict in this thread might have arisen because there's a difference between politely reminding everyone that we don't know enough to be 100% certain and telling people that their conclusions are "copium" because of that fact.

"Copium" is a potent cocktail that leads to conclusions based largely on (very) selective reasoning, hope and a deep aversion to a particular alternative.  Copium is some structural steel bars welded over the top of your T-72 because 'Ukraine have Javelins; Javelins attack from above; I just can't bear the thought of how horribly vulnerable to Javelin attack I am in my tank; Steel is hard and can be used as armour; QED'.  Copium is "Intelligent Design".

The majority of the useful opinions and positions expressed on this thread are not copium-fuelled.  They are properly and more-or-less rationally built upon a firm base of relevant professional experience and critical analysis of both available data and historic trends.  That does not (and cannot) lead to a 'certain' conclusion but it can (and does) lead to a 'most likely' conclusion.  Implicit in the work done to establish such a 'most likely' conclusion should be an understanding of where the weaknesses in the assessment lie and it is welcomed when people politely remind everyone what those weaknesses are.  That is partly because it demonstrates an understanding and appreciation of the work done by the person who carried out the assessment in question.  It is even more welcome when someone steps in and offers an equally or even more well-founded alternative assessment and conclusion, especially if it challenges the previous 'most likely' case.  That's because it adds to the conversation and can be educational and important to think about.

So while I would agree that 'group-think' can be dangerous that doesn't mean it should be challenged for the sake of it; it should be challenged based on the merits of the position that is being 'group-thunk'.  One's confidence in a position/the imperative to challenge it should always be proportional/inversely proportional to the strength of the case made for it.  That leads to the fact that the position itself should actually be irrelevant when deciding whether it needs to be challenged.  If you really are concerned by the fact that positions in this thread are "constantly undermining Russia", rather than that they are poorly-constructed, then you are the one letting your aversion to that "habit" drive your thinking.  You are the one getting too close to the copium fumes.

Finally, if being collectively in agreement in the absence of 100% proof is one of the most dangerous things in society then we are all doomed, since there is no such thing as 100% proof.  I would argue that it is actually disagreement with the collective simply due to a lack of 100% proof which is far more dangerous, since it leads to indecisiveness and passivity in the face of important challenges. See the climate change "debate".  See any number of the "debates" that spilt all over the place in 2020-21.  See the crippling paralysis that struck the collective West when definitely-not-100%-proven-to-be-Russian "Little Green Men" appeared in Crimea in 2014.

Forget 100% proof.  Search for 'most likely'.  Understand why it is considered 'most likely'.  If you agree, cherish collective agreement.  If you disagree, then explain why and you will be thanked for it.

I agree with almost everything you say. But I realize that I view this thread here (or, I guess, I'd just like it to be) much like you describe it: A place where people with various degrees of professional insight and experience rationally analyse what's going on.

That is in parts a misconception, though, I think. It is also a place much like the fan forum of some sports team where people come to cheer on their team. There, no matter how good the other team might be, it's absolute heresy to point that out to other fans. There is nothing wrong with such a place and it's part of the fun.

Things get difficult when both worlds mix, which is in a way what is going on here. People try to analyse but at the same time it is "their team" (Ukraine, NATO, etc) against the other team and some, I guess involuntarily, see it as their duty to defend their team and therefore to interpret observations in a way that makes their team look better. (Edit: Not meant to be judgemental, this is not some dry topic to study but something highly emotional - not "only" because it's war and people die but in addition because this is a wargaming forum where forumites are even more invested.) That leads to situations where people are told e.g. that they are just spreading Russian disinformation when just for voicing doubts. It leads to "group-think" of the sort: "if you don't agree you are obviously fan of the other team".

You are right, there is never 100% proof for anything. Scientifically speaking that's because you can never prove a theory, you can only falsify it. Which is why it is never wrong to challenge a theory. On the contrary it is absolutely necessary.

Ok, enough of that from a wannabe epistemologist like me. As Steve pointed out, there is something major going on in the meantime.

Edited June 15, 2023 by Butschi