How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Jr Buck Private]

45 minutes ago, Carolus said:

I present the new way to avoid minefields. 

Only float a foot above ground, drop down before entering the enemy trench, the belt system remains with the drone. Once the human weight drops, the drone goes to ground as an escape route if the raid goes awry or can be used as a resupply system. Either AI supported flight or remote controlled.

Yes yes, it is fanciful and dangerous. But since a lot of Russians seem to stay in their dugout after a barrage or even during an assault, it might not be much worse than driving right up with a BMP 1 and hoping no one has an RPG 7.

I was thinking more of a fighting Bradley vehicle, but make it into a hover craft.

[kevinkin]

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ruble-sanctions-war-ukraine-cf5448603b78f1bb884f3c68df5c7cd5

On Monday, some Russians in Moscow appeared concerned about the weakening currency.

“Prices will rise, which means that the standard of living will fall. It has already fallen, and it will fall even more — there are definitely more poor people,” said Vladimir Bessosedny, 63, a retired teacher.

[kimbosbread]

8 minutes ago, Jr Buck Private said:

I was thinking more of a fighting Bradley vehicle, but make it into a hover craft.

I always liked the idea of a two man ultralight with very short takeoff (possibly lada niva catapult)/landing. No armor of course, but you could cover a lot of distance, makes a lot less noise and is likely cheaper than a Bradley. And with an AI assist/pilot/control, it’ll be safer than a bunch of grunts with 150lb of gear each who haven’t slept in a week flying it. But that’s really the domain of special forces more than a whole battalion leaping forward.

Fundamentally, if you have a giant defensive “thing”, you can either go through it, around it, under it or over it. If you can’t go around or through, well, I submit over is easier than under.

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, Carolus said:

I present the new way to avoid minefields. 

Only float a foot above ground, drop down before entering the enemy trench, the belt system remains with the drone. Once the human weight drops, the drone goes to ground as an escape route if the raid goes awry or can be used as a resupply system. Either AI supported flight or remote controlled.

Yes yes, it is fanciful and dangerous. But since a lot of Russians seem to stay in their dugout after a barrage or even during an assault, it might not be much worse than driving right up with a BMP 1 and hoping no one has an RPG 7.

As utterly crazy as this is it might be a viable option for assaulting over a minefield. The thing I thing it gets slightly wrong is that it is controlled by the person on it. The poor bloody infantry need to be thinking about what their jobs are  if they live to dismount this little death trap. Also if the passenger doesn't have to control it, it implies it could be sent back for more passengers, and/or supplies. On the  extremely optimistic assumptions that something like this had a couple of kilometers of range, and that you could produce a couple of battalions worth of them, you might be able to get enough people and firepower over the minefield to allow a breaching operation to succeed. My, no doubt deranged, vision would be this centuries version of an air assault. Of course it might be even more suicidal than last century's version. But there would be at least a chance of disrupting what seems to be the emerging era of defensive dominance.

Like an air assault of course it will only work with the element of surprise, which may itself be close to extinct.

Edited August 14, 2023 by dan/california

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, Carolus said:

I present the new way to avoid minefields. 

Only float a foot above ground, drop down before entering the enemy trench, the belt system remains with the drone. Once the human weight drops, the drone goes to ground as an escape route if the raid goes awry or can be used as a resupply system. Either AI supported flight or remote controlled.

Yes yes, it is fanciful and dangerous. But since a lot of Russians seem to stay in their dugout after a barrage or even during an assault, it might not be much worse than driving right up with a BMP 1 and hoping no one has an RPG 7.

I'd say not fanciful at all.  and great for resupply.  very very very interesting.  Would be great for raids over the Dnieper.  Probably a lot less dangerous than rubber boats.

[dan/california]

58 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

Russian telegrammer says decision to evacuate Urozhaine (Harvest) was completed successfully:

https://t.me/voin_dv/4387
 

https://t.me/voin_dv/4390
 

 

As Kinophile brilliantly laid a out a month or so ago, the basic idea of the Ukrainian counter offensive is to keep forcing the Russians to use up their reserves until they just run out of them. If a unit of naval infantry had to come forward and experience the joys of receiving DPICM, just to extract forces from a place they were losing?  I would say the plan is working as designed. It all comes down to whether Ukraine has more artillery ammo than Russia has reserves?

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, Carolus said:

I present the new way to avoid minefields. 

Only float a foot above ground, drop down before entering the enemy trench, the belt system remains with the drone. Once the human weight drops, the drone goes to ground as an escape route if the raid goes awry or can be used as a resupply system. Either AI supported flight or remote controlled.

Yes yes, it is fanciful and dangerous. But since a lot of Russians seem to stay in their dugout after a barrage or even during an assault, it might not be much worse than driving right up with a BMP 1 and hoping no one has an RPG 7.

Is there any actual information about range and payload?

[kimbosbread]

1 minute ago, dan/california said:

Is there any actual information about range and payload?

We know what the payload requirement is- one grunt with gear, less knees (350lbs) plus 50% margin (175lbs) so let’s say 525lbs.

Not coincidentally, there are a ****load of heavy lift drones being developed to carry this much (Boeing’s cargo drone, Griff 400). You are looking around 30 minutes max flying time, so realistically 10 minutes of loaded flight before having to fly back.

Now, a winged design would give you more range, which is why I favor it over a pure quadcopter.

Also, think how loud helicopters are. Then think about a bunch of smaller rotors moving faster.

[Fernando]

1 hour ago, Carolus said:

I present the new way to avoid minefields. 

Only float a foot above ground, drop down before entering the enemy trench, the belt system remains with the drone. Once the human weight drops, the drone goes to ground as an escape route if the raid goes awry or can be used as a resupply system. Either AI supported flight or remote controlled.

Yes yes, it is fanciful and dangerous. But since a lot of Russians seem to stay in their dugout after a barrage or even during an assault, it might not be much worse than driving right up with a BMP 1 and hoping no one has an RPG 7.

It smells of Crete 2.0

Edited August 14, 2023 by Fernando

[danfrodo]

3 minutes ago, Fernando said:

It smells of Crete 2.0

for sure an operation could go that way, except these can turn around and maneuver and they can fly back out of trouble.  They can come in at low altitude using trees to screen.  A heckuva lot better than helos, rubber boats, and of course parachutes. As I always said about para operations " you can parachute in but you can't parachute out".  

So I am only looking at operations that would currently be a worse idea w/o these.

[kluge]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

This is exactly the kind of question the next version of the game needs to explore.

I think properly exploring that question would require modeling...wait for it....infantry riding on top of vehicles

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Carolus said:

Recently read an (older) article by a British ex-military who wrote about APCs and IFVs. William F. Owen. I have no idea what his credibility is.

I'll link below, but the gist is: According to him the IFV is an awkward compromise between mobility, protection, firepower and transport capacity.

He argues it makes more sense to focus on dedicated armored transports - the classic battle taxi - which drop firepower for an improvement in troop protection and capacity.

We often see Ukraine using MRAPs and similarly lighter vehicles for quick raids, firing at trenches, dismounting troops and zooming away if they fear that something heavy is aiming their way.

We also saw some conversions of T-series tanks into heavier transport, with the main turret removed. Does this indicate there is something to it?

Would it make sense to have a transport which has at most a GMG and smoke launchers, but might be able to shrug off a smaller tandem-warhead while transporting 8 to 10 men to the enemy trench, and leave the fire support to e.g. a Wiesel 1 sized UGV with a HMG or an AGM that stays behind?

Or does that unnecessarily complicate logistics and maintenance due to the different vehicle types? Same chassis as base? 

https://www.tjomo.com/article/wrong-technology-for-the-wrong-tactics-the-infantry-fighting-vehicle/

 

Highly credible. How do I know? He plays CM Seriously though, I’ve spoken with him on the phone and have checked out his CV. He is fully qualified to have an opinion worthy of consideration.

This article was written 10 years before this war started. I think Inread it at the time. As it so happens, I agreed with him then and even more now. I couldn’t be a supporter of the Stryker if I didn’t.

In this war we are seeing pretty much everything he talks about. IFVs in a minefield are no better than a modern APC (I.e. V-hull, high suspension, etc), yet significantly more expensive and therefore fewer in number. They are also just as likely to get hit by ATGM and artillery, yet not all that better at surviving. And then there is the reduced infantry capacity that he goes into detail about.

I think we are seeing the Ukrainians, and even Russians, using AFVs pretty well at times. Tank stays with infantry, APCs drop infantry and withdraw. Ideally the MBT should be replaced by an APC hull dedicated to infantry support in order to simplify production, logistics, and training. Stryker and Boxer follow this concept pretty well.

The other concept is to replace the MBT in the support role with something like the WW2 "Assault Gun" concept.  The Stryker MGS was supposed to be exactly that, but the platform was simply too light/small for it to be successful.  The US Army's new M10 Booker might be a good solution, especially as it is based on the proven Bradley chassis.  Reduce the turret of the standard Bradley to a multi-role RWS (with Javelin) and this is pretty much what the article is talking about.

Steve

[dan/california]

28 minutes ago, Fernando said:

It smells of Crete 2.0

The problem with Crete was that the Germans burned a very valuable strategic asset for a island that was less valuable than the asset. in question. One of the first and most important questions about an operation like the one I am proposing is whether or not a a very expensive victory is actually a victory. I keep coming back the battle of El Alamein. Montgomery's casualties during the assault phase were horrific. After days of brutally expensive grinding prep work, Monty told an armored brigade to get into the German gun line, or die trying. The brigade lost SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT of its vehicles in that attack. But Montgomery's evaluation of the risks, the costs, and the rewards were correct, that time. The British broke through and effectively wrecked the Africa Corps. 

Edited August 14, 2023 by dan/california

[Splinty]

1 hour ago, danfrodo said:

I'd say not fanciful at all.  and great for resupply.  very very very interesting.  Would be great for raids over the Dnieper.  Probably a lot less dangerous than rubber boats.

This retired infantryman says, not only no, but HELL no. Why? You ask. Darn near every soldier on the ground has an automatic weapon. If a group of those "grunt copters" flies over or attempts to land near an enemy position, they will be massacred before they hit the ground. 

[dan/california]

7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Highly credible. How do I know? He plays CM Seriously though, I’ve spoken with him on the phone and have checked out his CV. He is fully qualified to have an opinion worthy of consideration.

This article was written 10 years before this war started. I think Inread it at the time. As it so happens, I agreed with him then and even more now. I couldn’t be a supporter of the Stryker if I didn’t.

In this war we are seeing pretty much everything he talks about. IFVs in a minefield are no better than a modern APC (I.e. V-hull, high suspension, etc), yet significantly more expensive and therefore fewer in number. They are also just as likely to get hit by ATGM and artillery, yet not all that better at surviving. And then there is the reduced infantry capacity that he goes into detail about.

I think we are seeing the Ukrainians, and even Russians, using AFVs pretty well at times. Tank stays with infantry, APCs drop infantry and withdraw. Ideally the MBT should be replaced by an APC hull dedicated to infantry support in order to simplify production, logistics, and training. Stryker and Boxer follow this concept pretty well.

The other concept is to replace the MBT in the support role with something like the WW2 "Assault Gun" concept.  The Stryker MGS was supposed to be exactly that, but the platform was simply too light/small for it to be successful.  The US Army's new M10 Booker might be a good solution, especially as it is based on the proven Bradley chassis.  Reduce the turret of the standard Bradley to a multi-role RWS (with Javelin) and this is pretty much what the article is talking about.

Steve

I remember something you wrote ten, maybe even twenty years ago about how the Israelis are the only country that uses an MBT chassis for a significant number of IFVs. They do it because they are only first line military where the tactical advantages outweigh the operational cost. The distances involved are small enough for the concept to be valid for them. For everyone else strategic, and operational mobility and costs make it an unviable concept.

Of course the medium term question now is who is the first to field an "IFV" that is designed to deliver fifty very unpleasant little murder bots instead of ten infantrymen.

 

Quote

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/security-aviation/2022-11-18/ty-article/.premium/israels-elbit-sytems-unveiled-micro-suicide-drone-and-it-has-a-mother-ship/00000184-84d2-dd3b-a5bf-c4d6e2880000

 

My guess is not long...

[kimbosbread]

5 minutes ago, Splinty said:

This retired infantryman says, not only no, but HELL no. Why? You ask. Darn near every soldier on the ground has an automatic weapon. If a group of those "grunt copters" flies over or attempts to land near an enemy position, they will be massacred before they hit the ground. 

I don’t think it’s that bad for two reasons:

• These things are fast, like 60+mph fast. Hitting a low, fast moving target even with an automatic weapon is nontrivial.
• This system “ideally” would come with SEI (ie suppress the infrantry) which in my mind is a swarm of drones that would attack any infantry or fortified positions at the same time. No reason a drone swarm is just HE and Thermobaric- could also just be smoke.
• You aren’t just carrying infantry, but the semi-autonomous second-gen UGVs we’ve discussed before, ie a AGM or a NLAW quad pack mounted on an ATV or a brace of stretchers.

The weakness of this system is less exposure, and that is requires lots of coordination in an EW environment. Paradrops in war zones seems to degenerate into messes anyway, so if you can offload coordination and navigation to the machines, and the suppression strategy, it might not be so bad.

[dan/california]

19 minutes ago, Splinty said:

This retired infantryman says, not only no, but HELL no. Why? You ask. Darn near every soldier on the ground has an automatic weapon. If a group of those "grunt copters" flies over or attempts to land near an enemy position, they will be massacred before they hit the ground. 

Is it worse than crawling thru a mine field, very slowly, with a metal detector, and a glorified stick to find the mines one at a time? Because that seems to be the other choice. I am under no illusions that  this is a generally viable idea. But for a  high reward surprise attack it could "work". By work I mean the same way the airborne forces at D-Day "worked". They threw a meaningful amount of sand into the German operational system at a the critical moment. Their casualties were whatever is above high, but I think they made a meaningful contribution. Is there a war college study about whether or not the airborne operations In Normandy were worth the cost?

Edit: And of course there is a real risk tat the bad guys can throw mines into a breach faster than it is possible to remove them. That is happening now, today. Indeed I would argue it has become the signature tactical development of the second half of this war.

Edited August 14, 2023 by dan/california

[cesmonkey]

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3491937/biden-administration-announces-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/

Quote

The capabilities in this package, valued at up to $200 million, include:

1. Additional munitions for Patriot air defense systems;
2. Additional ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS);
3. Mine clearing equipment and systems;
4. 155mm and 105mm artillery rounds;
5. 120mm tank ammunition;
6. Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided (TOW) missiles;
7. Javelin and other anti-armor systems and rockets;
8. 37 tactical vehicles to tow and haul equipment;
9. 58 water trailers;
10. Over 12 million rounds of small arms ammunition and grenades;
11. Demolitions munitions for obstacle clearing; and
12. Spare parts, maintenance, and other field equipment.

 

[Beleg85]

Video from one of Russian channels; Kornet hitting reportedly Leo2. Wolski has doubts if it is indeed this type of tank, too low resolution. We see violent explosion or rather conflagration of ammo.

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Beleg85

[dan/california]

3 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Video from one of Russian channels; Kornet hitting reportedly Leo2. Wolski has doubts if it is indeed this type of tank, too low resolution. We see violent explosion or rather conflagration of ammo.

 

APS is not remotely a cure all, but I really do think that tanks/IFVs without it are borderline unviable on the modern battlefield. 

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Video from one of Russian channels; Kornet hitting reportedly Leo2. Wolski has doubts if it is indeed this type of tank, too low resolution. We see violent explosion or rather conflagration of ammo.

 

Yeah, I don't think that's a Leo.  Honestly, it could be a truck for all I can tell from that blurry gray blob.  The ammo went off instantly and it appears to have been stored inside the hull.  That's the sort of thing I'd expect to see from a Soviet type tank, not a Leo.

Steve

[Haiduk]

Another example of damages, caused by M30A1 missile strike on the trucks, using by Russians likely for ammunition delivering and plundered grain and other goods export in opposite direction. Reportedly this is Kherson oblast.

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Haiduk

[Haiduk]

79 air-assault brigade destroyed Russian UR-77 MICLIC with a grenade, dropped from the drone. Maryinka area.

 

[Haiduk]

Artillery of 3rd assault brigade has foiled Russian counter-atatck near Andriivka village, Bakhmut area. 2 T-90M, T-80BVM, MTLB, BMP-1 got damages and were abandoned. I hope, all this will be destroyed soon by drones

It's claimed 40 KIA and 25 WIA among Russian infantry, among them allegedly was kiled platoon commander of PMC "Espaniola" - volunteer unit, composed of football ultras, mostly of Moscow 

 

[Vet 0369]

7 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Another example of damages, caused by M30A1 missile strike on the trucks, using by Russians likely for ammunition delivering and plundered grain and other goods export in opposite direction. Reportedly this is Kherson oblast.

 

The fact that the vehicles are still in column suggests to me that the engines of each one is toast. If my engine was still operable, I suspect someone would have taken the place of any dead or wounded drivers and driven away, even with the flat tires.