How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

25 minutes ago, akd said:

The circular dispersion is an effect of how the submunitions are ejected from the carrier shell (via rotational forces).  The size of the pattern has the effective area of the submunitions overlapping.  Lower and each submunition would be wasting area of effect in overlap with others, higher and there would be gaps without effect in the ring.

I think overlaps could be the desired effect depending on fire mission (@JonS where are you?) - say neutralizing versus harassing type thing?

[Kraft]

Ive seen several videos of Infantry below the cluster ring get up and run away. They usually dont do that when an HE lands there.

The affected area is bigger but 95% hits empty field usually. Im sure they are full of holes but those can be patched up, a missing leg cant so my vote goes to HE

[Hapless]

I always loved that painting.

[Harmon Rabb]

21 minutes ago, Hapless said:

I always loved that painting.

From what I remember in the original painting the Cossacks were writing a letter to the Sultan. Guessing they are writing a letter to Tsar khuylo in this one.

I'm not an art historian but this is the painting I most associate with Ukraine.

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

From my perspective, shared by many here, we have already long passed the point where large armored vehicles (as currently conceived of) have any place on the battlefield of tomorrow.  They are already too expensive to make, too expensive to keep, and too expensive to deploy.  They are already too slow to manufacture, to slow to slow to maintain, and too slow to deploy.  They are already too vulnerable from expensive threads, medium threats, and increasingly cheap threats.

Sadly, as a tank aficionado, a lifelong tank cultist, this is probably true.  I just don't see much to refute it.  

And once again, having said that, it means we need more proper CM warfare where armor matters, as god intended before the moral and spiritual degradations of the modern age.  

[Blazing 88's]

Found this informative link recently posted on another game forum (WinSPMBT). The article is a little dated (July, 2020) I still found it interesting:

U.S. Army Short-Range Air Defense Force Structure and Selected Programs: Background and Issues for Congress
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R46463.html

 

 

[dan/california]

They seem to have adopted Steve's/The_Capt's approach in its entirety.

[dan/california]

 

[dan/california]

 

[Tenses]

1 hour ago, danfrodo said:

Sadly, as a tank aficionado, a lifelong tank cultist, this is probably true.  I just don't see much to refute it.  

And once again, having said that, it means we need more proper CM warfare where armor matters, as god intended before the moral and spiritual degradations of the modern age.  

I think that this is a little too fast to judge(tank death). We have seen very fast progress of anti-tank weaponry such as FPVs in this war(just think of what were the capabilities and usage cases of drones at the beginning of this war and what are 1.5 year later), but not much was done in regard to defense. In my personal view, after this war no country from the "first world" would go to war unprepared for such threat.

There are multiple responses to FPVs, PGMs and ATGMs alike as all of them base on two main characteristics to be effective:

- they fly faster/slower and have more/less degree of manuveribility.

- they carry exposives as a means to kill things

These two properties make these weapons vulnerable and easy to kill by anything that CAN hit them, so the only problem is to deploy defensive weaponry, which actually can. My personal bet here are readily available ultra-short range AA by strapping together machine gun and visual/radar targeting. You can make it en masse and at least the usage is cheap enough to rip through any number of attacking drones. At least from economical perspective. Also personal rifles will HAVE to be able to shoot down small drone up to 500m or more without major issues. Rifles will slowly drift from offensive weapon to something like last resort defense. Ballistic computers should also be already able to provide something like that. For tanks and other vehicles we will se just evolution of APS + ultra-short AA as above. Dedicated AA vehicles will also provide some area cover just like normal air defense today.

What I would NOT invest in is electronical warfare. We already see some attempts to make these weapons autonomus and this will be standard, if this war will take another 2 years or so, making electronic warfare against drones/PGMs pretty much useless. Welcome to Skynet World.

 

[danfrodo]

With autumn we'll be losing the leaf cover.  I remember in the spring how much it mattered that it returned.  So who does losing leaf cover favor?  Attacker or defender?  My first thought is that leaf cover favors the defender, so losing it favors the attacker.  But attacker uses leaf cover to screen movement, so sometimes will hurt.

Lots of artillery & vehicles will now be exposed and that favors the side w better eyes & better precision, so UKR I would think.

[cesmonkey]

 

[The_Capt]

38 minutes ago, Tenses said:

I think that this is a little too fast to judge(tank death). We have seen very fast progress of anti-tank weaponry such as FPVs in this war(just think of what were the capabilities and usage cases of drones at the beginning of this war and what are 1.5 year later), but not much was done in regard to defense. In my personal view, after this war no country from the "first world" would go to war unprepared for such threat.

There are multiple responses to FPVs, PGMs and ATGMs alike as all of them base on two main characteristics to be effective:

- they fly faster/slower and have more/less degree of manuveribility.

- they carry exposives as a means to kill things

These two properties make these weapons vulnerable and easy to kill by anything that CAN hit them, so the only problem is to deploy defensive weaponry, which actually can. My personal bet here are readily available ultra-short range AA by strapping together machine gun and visual/radar targeting. You can make it en masse and at least the usage is cheap enough to rip through any number of attacking drones. At least from economical perspective. Also personal rifles will HAVE to be able to shoot down small drone up to 500m or more without major issues. Rifles will slowly drift from offensive weapon to something like last resort defense. Ballistic computers should also be already able to provide something like that. For tanks and other vehicles we will se just evolution of APS + ultra-short AA as above. Dedicated AA vehicles will also provide some area cover just like normal air defense today.

What I would NOT invest in is electronical warfare. We already see some attempts to make these weapons autonomus and this will be standard, if this war will take another 2 years or so, making electronic warfare against drones/PGMs pretty much useless. Welcome to Skynet World.

 

How does one provide cover from smart-DPICM raining from the sky?  This is a criticism I have about the entire "tank defence", it picks a few threats and goes "we can solve for that".  What it fails to do is recognize:

1) The technology to defeat any counters is moving too fast.  As Steve notes every time a solution is found, two more pop up.  Ok, we layer APS on everything to counter those pokey and vulnerable ATGMs.  Then someone builds an ATGM with sub-munitions, so Javelin 2030 (tm) splits into 6 smart attack vehicles and APS can't keep up.  Oh wait there is more...standoff EFP.  Worked very well for insurgents in Iraq and is aching for a comeback.  Now you could have a ATGM that essentially explodes 50m out and drives a slug thru your tank.  Now APS needs to push out even further.  The trends of lighter, smaller, cheaper and smarter are accelerating anti-tank weaponry to the point that the tank is trending towards marginalization.

2) The entire tank system is too damn fragile.  Even the tank itself is pretty fragile.  The thing need only take a few sub-munition hits and one can knock out the engine, or the gun, or the track.  Then all of the support systems from forward repair, to recovery, to logistical support are also heavy, hot and easily spotted.  So now one has to bubble wrap that entire system just to keep the tanks in motion - even assuming away all the threats to the tank itself.  I am pretty sure our gas trucks burn as well as Russian ones.

The tank is being squeezed, along with the rest of mech.  And it is also being replaced.  If the job was to hurl energy at targets from 2kms+ back, well we kinda got that covered off without needing 50 ton behemoths to do it.  Infantry support...this one is interesting especially in this war.  Between ISR and UAS, infantry and artillery have formed an unholy union.  Add in UAS attack capability and if infantry need something under cover to die there are ways to do it not involving a multi-million dollar vehicle that needs a Broadway production just to keep it rolling from A to B.

I am sure people will still buy tanks.  They built battleships for years even after they were pushed out.  But the trend will be lighter, longer, lethal and cheaper.  We will see militaries de-aggregate into lethal mist.  If someone brings expensive, big, hot and heavy to a fight that mist will simply rust the entire heavy system to ash.  No, mist on mist is where this is going.  

   

[Haiduk]

Russian TG rumors.

Allegedly number of victims of missile strike on BSF HQ is 34 about half of them were officers. Now it's impossible to say a complete number, because most of bodies are fragmented. 

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/23/us/us-soldiers-ukraine-hospital-germany.html

But the arrangement is not without risks. Russia has repeatedly warned that any increase in U.S. involvement could spark a broader war. It would not take a particularly creative Russian propagandist to portray the American volunteers, wielding American weapons and being treated at an American Army hospital, as de facto U.S. troops on the ground.

 

The overall article is pretty good, but this has to be the dumbest paragraph the times has written about the war in a year. U.S. DPICM shells are raining down on Russian positions by the thousands, and this reporter wants us to worry that treating some wounded volunteers is going to be what pushes the Russians into losing a broader war war worse than they catastrophically losing this one. Dude, if that is what you are worried about, maybe don't put on the front page of the NYT.

The article also says that the hospital is only taking a ~third of the patients it could. There is ZERO reason for it not to be running at capacity in the absence of a significant U.S. operation somewhere else.

[dan/california]

19 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

How does one provide cover from smart-DPICM raining from the sky?  This is a criticism I have about the entire "tank defence", it picks a few threats and goes "we can solve for that".  What it fails to do is recognize:

1) The technology to defeat any counters is moving too fast.  As Steve notes every time a solution is found, two more pop up.  Ok, we layer APS on everything to counter those pokey and vulnerable ATGMs.  Then someone builds an ATGM with sub-munitions, so Javelin 2030 (tm) splits into 6 smart attack vehicles and APS can't keep up.  Oh wait there is more...standoff EFP.  Worked very well for insurgents in Iraq and is aching for a comeback.  Now you could have a ATGM that essentially explodes 50m out and drives a slug thru your tank.  Now APS needs to push out even further.  The trends of lighter, smaller, cheaper and smarter are accelerating anti-tank weaponry to the point that the tank is trending towards marginalization.

2) The entire tank system is too damn fragile.  Even the tank itself is pretty fragile.  The thing need only take a few sub-munition hits and one can knock out the engine, or the gun, or the track.  Then all of the support systems from forward repair, to recovery, to logistical support are also heavy, hot and easily spotted.  So now one has to bubble wrap that entire system just to keep the tanks in motion - even assuming away all the threats to the tank itself.  I am pretty sure our gas trucks burn as well as Russian ones.

The tank is being squeezed, along with the rest of mech.  And it is also being replaced.  If the job was to hurl energy at targets from 2kms+ back, well we kinda got that covered off without needing 50 ton behemoths to do it.  Infantry support...this one is interesting especially in this war.  Between ISR and UAS, infantry and artillery have formed an unholy union.  Add in UAS attack capability and if infantry need something under cover to die there are ways to do it not involving a multi-million dollar vehicle that needs a Broadway production just to keep it rolling from A to B.

I am sure people will still buy tanks.  They built battleships for years even after they were pushed out.  But the trend will be lighter, longer, lethal and cheaper.  We will see militaries de-aggregate into lethal mist.  If someone brings expensive, big, hot and heavy to a fight that mist will simply rust the entire heavy system to ash.  No, mist on mist is where this is going.  

   

The side who shows up with EDIT: more : "lethal nanodust"(TM) faster wins. Not really joking.

Edited September 23, 2023 by dan/california

[akd]

Umm…are they running out of TOS systems?

 

[Fernando]

27 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

How does one provide cover from smart-DPICM raining from the sky?  This is a criticism I have about the entire "tank defence", it picks a few threats and goes "we can solve for that".  What it fails to do is recognize:

1) The technology to defeat any counters is moving too fast.  As Steve notes every time a solution is found, two more pop up.  Ok, we layer APS on everything to counter those pokey and vulnerable ATGMs.  Then someone builds an ATGM with sub-munitions, so Javelin 2030 (tm) splits into 6 smart attack vehicles and APS can't keep up.  Oh wait there is more...standoff EFP.  Worked very well for insurgents in Iraq and is aching for a comeback.  Now you could have a ATGM that essentially explodes 50m out and drives a slug thru your tank.  Now APS needs to push out even further.  The trends of lighter, smaller, cheaper and smarter are accelerating anti-tank weaponry to the point that the tank is trending towards marginalization.

2) The entire tank system is too damn fragile.  Even the tank itself is pretty fragile.  The thing need only take a few sub-munition hits and one can knock out the engine, or the gun, or the track.  Then all of the support systems from forward repair, to recovery, to logistical support are also heavy, hot and easily spotted.  So now one has to bubble wrap that entire system just to keep the tanks in motion - even assuming away all the threats to the tank itself.  I am pretty sure our gas trucks burn as well as Russian ones.

The tank is being squeezed, along with the rest of mech.  And it is also being replaced.  If the job was to hurl energy at targets from 2kms+ back, well we kinda got that covered off without needing 50 ton behemoths to do it.  Infantry support...this one is interesting especially in this war.  Between ISR and UAS, infantry and artillery have formed an unholy union.  Add in UAS attack capability and if infantry need something under cover to die there are ways to do it not involving a multi-million dollar vehicle that needs a Broadway production just to keep it rolling from A to B.

I am sure people will still buy tanks.  They built battleships for years even after they were pushed out.  But the trend will be lighter, longer, lethal and cheaper.  We will see militaries de-aggregate into lethal mist.  If someone brings expensive, big, hot and heavy to a fight that mist will simply rust the entire heavy system to ash.  No, mist on mist is where this is going.  

   

2) The entire tank system infantry system is too damn fragile.  Even the tank infantryman itself is pretty fragile.  The thing need only take a few  one sub-munition hits and one can knock out  hurt the engine the heart, or the gun an arm, or the track a leg.  Then all of the support systems from forward repair hospitals to recovery, to logistical support are also heavy, hot and easily spotted.  So now one has to bubble wrap that entire system just to keep the tank infantry in motion - even assuming away all the threats to the tank infantryman itself.  I am pretty sure our gas trucks infantrymen burn die as well as Russian ones.

[Haiduk]

Russian train turns back from the front about 20 of damaged BMDs. Many of them havn't tracks - wheels and easy losing tracks it's most weak point of this vehicle, some vehicles hadn't guns

 

[hcrof]

2 minutes ago, Fernando said:

2) The entire tank system infantry system is too damn fragile.  Even the tank infantryman itself is pretty fragile.  The thing need only take a few  one sub-munition hits and one can knock out  hurt the engine the heart, or the gun an arm, or the track a leg.  Then all of the support systems from forward repair hospitals to recovery, to logistical support are also heavy, hot and easily spotted.  So now one has to bubble wrap that entire system just to keep the tank infantry in motion - even assuming away all the threats to the tank infantryman itself.  I am pretty sure our gas trucks infantrymen burn die as well as Russian ones.

Infantry are hard to see, very hard to kill in a trench, and don't burn gallons of diesel every hour. 

Having said that I am sure we will eventually see drones replacing infantry too. 

[cesmonkey]

 

[Fernando]

9 minutes ago, hcrof said:

Infantry are hard to see, very hard to kill in a trench, and don't burn gallons of diesel every hour. 

Having said that I am sure we will eventually see drones replacing infantry too. 

Only the infantry controls the terrain. The rest of arms (artillery, armored forces, engineers, the air force, and even the navy when it comes to projecting ground power) are only there to act in a coordinated manner with the objective of getting an infantryman to finally take the objective.

If there is not some type of infantry in the future, it will be because machines have replaced us and humanity has become extinct.

Edited September 23, 2023 by Fernando

[Haiduk]

UKR PzH2000 hit Russian 2S3 in Novoprokopivka area

 

[JonS]

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I think overlaps could be the desired effect depending on fire mission (@JonS where are you?) - say neutralizing versus harassing type thing?

Yeah, the correct answer is obviously 'it depends'.

I don't recall what the specific area of effect for each submunition is, but let's go with a grenade, so a lethal radius (for unprotected upright soldiers) of 5m, which means you want submunitions landing in a regular pattern about 2-3m apart if your target is unprotected upright soldiers, which equates to one sub approx every 5m²

Vehicular targets is a different problem - for those - and especially for even lightly armoured targets - you need a direct hit since the jet from a shaped charge doesn't have an area effect; either it really ruins your day or gives you a giggle. And, again, I don't really know what number of hits you'd need to get on an armoured target to assure an effect - and anyway that depends again on the target - truck vs MRAP vs BMP vs T-72, the answer is different for each.

The top area of a T-72 is 7m x 3.5m = 21.5m². The projected area for an object approaching at about 40° from the horizontal - ie what a DPICM round would actually be faced with - would be different, and smaller (I think? Pretty sure smaller?) but I can't be bothered doing the maths to figure that out, so for this we'll just assume the rounds are approaching vertically. So if you just went with the infantry approach of one sub per 5m² you'd be looking at most likely getting four hits on any T-72s within the impact area. That's probably good enough for government work, which means that you don't need to adjust the height of burst for different target types (handy!) and also means you could design the dispersal to work optimally at the standard height for a prox fuze (handy!).

Each 155mm M864 round carries 72 subs (of two different types, but for this we'll assume equivalent effectiveness). Assuming even distribution, each round can cover an area of about 350m², or a circle of radius 10-to-11m ... which is tiny for a 155mm round. A battery shoot of six guns with one shooting at the centre of the circle and the remaining 5 distributed around a ring or radius 20m ... you're only looking at a battery impact zone of radius 30m which isn't barely enough to cover a platoon defensive position, and unlikely to contain more than one vehicle.

Hmm. That can't be right.

Let's double the dispersion (and drop the effectiveness); so subs in a regular pattern 5-6m apart, or one every 24m². That gives each round a potential effective area of 1700m², or a radius of 23-to-24m, which is broadly equivalent to unitary HE rounds (handy!).

So, if you want to increase the effectiveness - or increase the assurance of effect - you can then pump more rounds onto the target, or use time fuzes and fiddle about with the height of burst; lower for denser and increased effectiveness but lower coverage, higher for sparser and lower effectiveness by increased coverage.

Or, to put that another way, lower HOB for armoured or dug in targets, higher HOB for unarmoured or exposed targets.

Either way, though, accurate targetting is key. If you are even 50m off with your target grid you are going to miss and have no effect.

[Haiduk]

Looks like hidden anti-Wagner front in Africa is expanding (Budanov activity?)

Reportedly tuareg tribes of Mali, who suffered because of Wagner's violence, came to war with them

And today IL-76, allegedly used by Wagner was crashed or shot down in airport of Mali Goa

Edited September 23, 2023 by Haiduk