How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[poesel]

Kitty helping Kitty: Bergepanzer 3 rescues Leo 2 from a ditch:

 

[JonS]

2 hours ago, kimbosbread said:

I’m not convinced a 125mm shell from 3km is any better than a 120mm mortar bomb, or an FPV drone carrying an AT mine, or Brimstone/Spike or all the “heavier than a man can carry” weapons (and a lot of the man-portable weapons, including smaller FPV drones, are as capable in my mind). Dropping a big *** mine from the top is going to destroy almost anything, and is really hard to stop. 

direct fire is useful for the same reason hyper-sonic is useful: it's really really hard to sense, react, and intercept in time.

(plus, of course, that whole mv² thing - increasing v makes a tank gunner smile. Have you made a tank gunner smile today? If not, donate some v now, our operators are waiting for your call on 0800-MORE-V-NOW)

[cesmonkey]

From the Russian milblogger Rybar:
https://t.me/rybar/52299
 

Quote

So far, only formations of the 35th , 36th and 37th Marine Brigades have arrived. It is also expected that 38 infantry infantry fighting vehicles and seven artillery battalions will appear. All these connections were removed from the Vremevsky site , which is why there is now a lull there.

️Judging by the concentration of forces, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have prioritized an offensive across the Dnieper to reach Crimea . Therefore, attempts continue to occupy the island zone of the Dnieper to provide a bridgehead.

The most likely direction should be considered Novaya Kakhovka . But the implementation of the plan is possible only with a simultaneous attack on the Orekhovsky sector , as well as from the Black Sea .

Given the increasing activity of the Ukrainian landing force off the coast of the peninsula, preparations are in full swing. Moreover, at the Rabotino - Verbovoe line , the Ukrainian Armed Forces are again preparing for an assault.

 

[holoween]

9 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Tank Fight!!!  Steve already beat up on a lot of this.  To which I would add:

- C-RAM.  If technology becomes mature that allows a force to shield hundreds of small sub-munitions coming in at 100s of m/s then the tank will be long gone already.  In fact with that level of resolution and precision targeting anything larger than a field mouse (with a little helmet on) above ground is dead.  You may as well cite Gandalf and the League of White Wizards.  C-RAM tech is currently big, heavy and effective against very few incoming at a time, largely in a COIN or low level conflict context.  To upscale to what we are seeing in Ukraine is…well…just not happening anytime soon.

SHORAD is no longer optional because airpower cant keep low airspace clean. And giving those a C-RAM capability is trivial in the sense that all newly developed ones can already do it.

9 hours ago, The_Capt said:

- ATGMs and RPGs are nowhere near the limits of lethality to weight.  Do just a bit of reading on nano-treated explosives. https://www.army.mil/article/243587/army_argonne_scientists_explore_nanoparticles_for_future_weapon_systems.  And that is not science fiction, prototypes are already in the works.

yea but thats quite a bit less growth potential than you can expect from an aps.

 

9 hours ago, The_Capt said:

-Integrated APS at platoon level - I should freakin hope so!  You mean we don’t have this already?!  It will buy some time I am sure but as we have seen sticking a lot of tanks close to each other is not smart on this battlefield, let alone the next one.  A whole platoon popping off APS is going to draw a lot of heat (tee hee) but hey if it get you to sleep at night.

See now you make me question how up to date you actually are on certain tech. APS are with the exception of Israel only deployed in homeopathic ammounts. The tanks deployed in Ukraine are all at least 2 generations behind the anti tank weapons deployed. Which is why the tank died when 1920s tanks got destroyed in the 10s of thousands at the start of ww2 and again when ATGMs got introduced... oh wait they didnt.

Integrated platoon APS arent a thing yet though id be surprised if it isnt being worked on. Alwso youve got it backwards. A platoon of tanks firing APS has alredy drawn the heat.

9 hours ago, The_Capt said:

- Logistics.  This will be the fight for the next decade at least.  How does one protect logistics lines?  Self loitering and longer more precise artillery is going to push fights over the horizon (well out of tank fire range) and protecting logistics is going to be really challenging.  Guns have the advantage because they are already well back.  As to tank “driving back”…see movement=spotted=dead on the modern battlefield. Right now in Ukraine the tanks are largely already back near the guns.

As said at the start of the post SHORAD is no loonger optional. Also hoe do the russsians and ukrainians manage to keep themselves supplied since its aparently impossible?

Yes tanks sit back with the arty which is why we see them shooting at other tanks sitting on the other side of a hedge 50m away... oh wait no they are sitting at the frontline.

10 hours ago, The_Capt said:

- Mech infantry and their kit: “You are always creative unless it is stuff you don’t like”.  So you think all those unmanned systems might take some of that load off.  I mean you are ready to lean on freakin Iron Dome force fields to hold off DPICM but somehow having unmanned offset infantry loads is just science fiction?

No thats in active development but as a target profile its simply more infantry that cant take cover properly. It also doesnt speed up infantry and i really wouldnt want to be the infantry having to walk through 20km of arty covered terrain to get to the frontline.

 

10 hours ago, The_Capt said:

-How have infantry been doing against ISR and artillery?  Well better than armour but not by enough on the offensive, yet.  But hey we get it infantry screwed, armour forever!  Look everyone can go hug their stuffed tank while sporting their armoured corps pyjamas.  I frankly don’t have a dog in this fight.  What I am very interested in is ensuring we chart a military capability course based on reality and not culture or history.

Your approach to creating military capability is to throw everything out and start from scratch. Mine is to see where the failiure points are and if they can be fixed or need a different approach.

And Infantry from my view is far less replacable than any combat vehicle. There is a har cap on how many are available and tapping into the manpower pool directly reduces the productive capabilities of the nation theyre part of.

[Jr Buck Private]

Seems like the Ukrainians have preserved their Leo's by keeping them back and using them to snipe at positions.  I wonder if that's the future of the tank?  Just use them like a well armored self propelled gun of sorts.   I guess the game changes when a major break thru occurs.    

[poesel]

It seems it was necessary to make this video which states the obvious. That frightens me a bit. But still a good thing.

 

Edited September 24, 2023 by poesel

[chuckdyke]

47 minutes ago, Jr Buck Private said:

I wonder if that's the future of the tank? 

We can't tell the future. Tracks, Armor and a Gun same as WW2 but it is a completely different vehicle. It is as different as an aircraft carrier compared with a battleship. Going to engage from behind the horizon. Question is how far? 

Edited September 24, 2023 by chuckdyke

[Beleg85]

Sorrowful video of Russian ambushing and killing two Ukrainian soldiers from behind.What is of notice is confirmation that fight takes place in Novoprokopivka village and video seems rather fresh.

 

Edited September 24, 2023 by Beleg85

[Fernando]

13 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Oh very clever.  Ok let’s have it out on infantry vs tanks moving forward.  Infantry are extremely cheap.  Putting human life aside, Russia has demonstrated that infantry, though soft and squishy can be replaced in the tens of thousands.  Tanks are big expensive and hard to manufacture at scale.  Infantry as humans do need a lot of support - likely why we will see more unmanned.  But they also do not need a recovery vehicle that also weighs 40tons, nor do they burn tens of thousands of gallons of gas per day.  An infantry soldier can survive on a few kilos of support per day (food, water and ammo), a tank needs hundreds of kilos all on vulnerable trucks.  Infantry can be pushed to keep going, when 50tons decides to stop moving it is done.

This whole “infantry can die to” as a counter argument to the continued trajectory of obsolescence of heavy mech and armour is not only illogical it is deflecting.

Infantry can disperse, dig in and hide.  They are able to cross terrain impassable to tanks.  They break down but are easy to replace.  They can fight in built up areas.  They do not weigh 50 tons each and give off enough heat to be seen from space.  They are cheap, light and now armed with ISR, comms and weapons systems that can kill a tank out past 4km (and with NLOS tens of kms).

Infantry have completely different roles on the battlefield and we have yet to find technology to replace infantry…we may never.  So come on the board and bleat all you want about the life left in heavy armour but for the love of gawd can we put that stupid “infantry die too and we are not getting rid of them” argument in the ground?  As soon as we can produce thousands of fighting tanks per week out of a global civilian tank population of 8 billion you may have a point.

Infantry is probably the most vulnerable arm (any weapon is capable of damaging it) and therefore it is also the one that is suffering the most losses during this war. There are hundreds of thousands of "units" (each soldier being understood as a "unit" or "vehicle") of infantry lost since February 2022. Every day a few hundred more are "destroyed" (they die or are mutilated) on both sides. However, no one proposes that we eliminate the infantry since it is certainly impossible to replace.

What is the argument used to defend infantry that in practice are dropping like flies with losses that no NATO army has suffered since World War II? Which is cheap, much cheaper than complex weapons such as MBTs, fighter-bombers, attack helicopters, etc. and that can be replaced very quickly. But infantry is NOT cheap. You may not lose a lot of money every time an infantryman is killed or incapacitated, but you do pay a disproportionate price in blood and lives, which is also a price to take into account.

Tell the Canadian or American soldiers that it is better to lose 2,000 dead or maimed US o Canadian infantrymen or marines than 50 MBTs because soldiers are cheaper and easier to replace (until they are gone and you are forced to enlist teenagers and old people, that is) than any armored vehicle. Tel them that The future is a war of attrition in the style of World War I where a war of movement is renounced because it is more expensive than sending groups of infantry to charge the enemy trenches, occupy them, and return to assault more trenches until those soldiers have died or lost a leg or an arm. After all, they are very easy to replace and there are lots of replacement  "units" that cost nothing to build (but ask your parents if that's true).

We are observing the war that UKRAINE fights with its means, not NATO. It is a war that has evolved into a war of positions, of frontal attacks, without maneuvers, very much in the style of World War I, and on another scale, similar to that of Iraq and Iran from 1980-1988. In 1991 the Iraqis drew on their experience and created defensive lines just as they knew had worked against the Iranians. A month of continuous bombing with the use for the first time of notable quantities of PGMs destroyed the Iraqis' fighting capacity. The Ukrainians cannot even dream of that, since they lack an air force capable of confronting the Russians. They act in inferiority in many ways. For example, they lack sufficient fighter-bombers and helicopters to completely nullify those of the Russians and are forced to face a line entrenched and prepared for months through frontal attacks and backed by attack helicopters and lots of artiillery.

The means that the Ukrainians have, have nothing to do with what NATO would have in a confrontation with Russia. That is why the war is different and the lessons drawn are different.

That the MBTs face an incredible panoply of enemies capable of destroying them? Yes, but the same goes for airplanes, helicopters, artillery guns, engineering vehicles, transport trucks or headquarters. Tanks are considered one of the most dangerous weapons (which they are), if not the most, and that is why all efforts are primarily concentrated on destroying them.

If you were in a trench and two Russian tanks approached to shoot at you from well-protected positions, what would you prefer? Send drones to destroy them, or have those drones bomb a warehouse 20 km behind the enemy lines or the BSF headquarters in Crimea? First are always the tanks, and only when you can, when their threat is less, it's up to the rest (artillery, engineers, headquarters, warehouses).

If I remember correctly, many Ukrainian infantrymen said that the greatest danger to them is a tank, and that is why all efforts are used to destroy them. If there are no tanks left, those efforts (drones, PGMs, etc.) are dedicated to destroying other objectives, but the priority for front line infantrymen almost always are tanks.

In my opinion, war at a tactical level is a matter of rock-paper-scissors. Action must be taken in combination with all available and possible elements. If the enemy keeps playing rock all the time, like Russians are doing, you must play paper all the time, but if the enemy plays paper, you have to play scissors, rather than playing paper again. And to do this you have to have rock, paper and scissors available, because if one is missing, you will end up losing the war.

Edited September 24, 2023 by Fernando

[photon]

7 hours ago, Kinophile said:

I've seen this idea many times and I've never bought it, specifically the trope that the Navies though this or that. They didn't.

A sloppy way of talking. Fair enough. The war plans adopted by the respective navies reflected a contest between battle lines as the culmination of the war effort and shaped treaty obligations, cheating on those treaties, naval procurement, and doctrine.

8 hours ago, Kinophile said:

It wasn't that the battleship would decide things,  but that without them you were vulnerable to a force that did have both carriers and battleships. 

You're kind of making my argument for me. Let's look at the major naval engagements of the pacific campaign comparing battleship strength and outcome:

• Coral Sea - 0 IJN battleships, 0 USN battleships. Complicated outcome.
• Midway - 5 IJN battleships, 0 USN battleships. Decisive USN victory.
• Eastern Solomons - 2 IJN battleships, 1 USN battleship. USN victory.
• Santa Cruz - 4 IJN battleships, 1 USN battleship. Complicated outcome.
• Philippine Sea - 5 IJN battleships, 7 USN battleships. Decisive USN victory.
• Off Samar - 4 IJN battleships, 0 USN battleships. Decisive USN victory.
• Surigao Strait - 2 IJN battleships, 6 USN battleships. Decisive USN victory. (Night action, no carriers present.)

The USN only had battleships superiority twice. Once at the Philippine sea, where battleships provided only AA support (and not too much of that; the CAP mauled the IJN air wings). And again at Surigao, where Oldendorf crossed the T of an already badly outmatched and outmoded Japanese fleet.

Again, we could compare the AA protection of USN various ships:

• Cleveland Class ('42) - 6 x 5" - 12 x Bofors - 20 x Oerlikon
• Cleveland Class ('44) - 6 x 5" -  28 (!) x Bofors - 10 x Oerlikon
• Atlanta Class - 6 x 5" - 16 x Before - 12 x Oerlikon
• Colorado Class ('42) - 8 x 5" - 16 x Bofors - 32 x Oerlikon
• Colorado Class ('45) - 8 x 5" - 40 (!) x Bofors - 36 x Oerlikon
• Iowa Class - 20 x 5" (!) - 80 (!) x Bofors - 49 x Oerlikon

8 hours ago, Kinophile said:

But there will always be a use for a fast moving ground platform that can send an insanely fast and heavy projectile downrange. 

Well maybe. There's not a need anymore for a ship that can send a minivan sized explosive shell 30 miles downrange. The capabilities of the battleships got disintegrated even during wartime. We kept the ships around because we had more fuel oil than we needed, and hey, why not? The war was hilariously lopsided by that point anyway.

It turned out that the main capability of the battleship didn't supply much combat power, and the other capabilities of the battleship could be distributed to other (cheaper) ships. I see something similar happening with the tank. Before the ISR revolution, the only way to apply direct fire to hardened targets was to armor your direct fire platform and have it drive into visual range. That capability is now disintegrated. There are lots of ways to apply "direct" fire to a hardened target from outside visual range. And those are getting cheaper and more capable. So the other capabilities of the tank will get disintegrated too. We may still have something called a "tank", but its doctrine, design, and procurement will be totally different, just like the battleship.

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, JonS said:

direct fire is useful for the same reason hyper-sonic is useful: it's really really hard to sense, react, and intercept in time.

(plus, of course, that whole mv² thing - increasing v makes a tank gunner smile. Have you made a tank gunner smile today? If not, donate some v now, our operators are waiting for your call on 0800-MORE-V-NOW)

Problem is that old planet earth is round and bumpy.  And that “m” can only fly in straight lines at that “v”.  Given the ranges of engagement trends the fight could very well already be over before forces get into direct fire range…or at least forces with human beings in them. That, and there are a lot of other ways to get E than m and v on the future battlefield.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, holoween said:

SHORAD is no longer optional because airpower cant keep low airspace clean. And giving those a C-RAM capability is trivial in the sense that all newly developed ones can already do it.

yea but thats quite a bit less growth potential than you can expect from an aps.

 

See now you make me question how up to date you actually are on certain tech. APS are with the exception of Israel only deployed in homeopathic ammounts. The tanks deployed in Ukraine are all at least 2 generations behind the anti tank weapons deployed. Which is why the tank died when 1920s tanks got destroyed in the 10s of thousands at the start of ww2 and again when ATGMs got introduced... oh wait they didnt.

Integrated platoon APS arent a thing yet though id be surprised if it isnt being worked on. Alwso youve got it backwards. A platoon of tanks firing APS has alredy drawn the heat.

As said at the start of the post SHORAD is no loonger optional. Also hoe do the russsians and ukrainians manage to keep themselves supplied since its aparently impossible?

Yes tanks sit back with the arty which is why we see them shooting at other tanks sitting on the other side of a hedge 50m away... oh wait no they are sitting at the frontline.

No thats in active development but as a target profile its simply more infantry that cant take cover properly. It also doesnt speed up infantry and i really wouldnt want to be the infantry having to walk through 20km of arty covered terrain to get to the frontline.

 

Your approach to creating military capability is to throw everything out and start from scratch. Mine is to see where the failiure points are and if they can be fixed or need a different approach.

And Infantry from my view is far less replacable than any combat vehicle. There is a har cap on how many are available and tapping into the manpower pool directly reduces the productive capabilities of the nation theyre part of.

Ok, where to start.  Well SHORAD and C-RAM are two very different things and you seem to be drawing a parallel that isn’t there between them.  One is AD, which is going to have a big enough problem with C-UAS let alone indirect fire.

Nano technology, which is also already well on its way, is not about Grey Goo (yet) is about additives to manufacturing.  For things like explosives it means one can get yields from weights that are an order of magnitude smaller.  The implication is that sub-munitions can get smaller and retain lethality.

APS.  And this makes me wonder how up to date you are on technology.  You are resting a whole lot on Shield technology to keep current armour in the fight.  APS is not designed for ICM or indirect fire nor is the tech ready to do that.  Current APS are challenged by top attack, decoys, multiple sub-munitions, stand-off EFP…oh and landmines of course…we haven’t even touched kamikaze UGVs.  However, I was not aware APS was not integrated at a team of troop level, that is not good news at all because it means MBTs are still built for individual vehicle defence while everything designed to kill them is already talking to each other.

Logistics.  The RA had a 12:1 force ratio advantage at Kyiv and were stopped cold.  No small part of that was sustained hits to there logistics lines.  So they did not “cope with it” they lost.  The UA introduced HIMARS and broke their logistics back again last fall resulting in massive setback ps for the RA.  The RA has not conducted a mech/armoured offensive since last summer.  So as far as heavy is concerned they are not managing it.  They can supply infantry and artillery (for now).  Any believe that it is business as usual in rear areas in a UAS/PGM/ISR environment are delusional.  Did it ever occur that Ukraine is also keeping to bite sized pushes because that is all they can support en masse?  

Take a look at this war.  Infantry walking is exactly what we are seeing. Ya think there might be good reasons for this?  How we can mount and move infantry is another really big question.  Right now I would invest in quad bikes/ATVs over any heavy metal.

My approach to military evolution is to see what is happening and adapt to it, not try and get reality to adapt to what I already have in garrison.  We know we can keep infantry and artillery.  Unmanned is a must.  Precision and ISR are also non-optional.  What we do with mech/armour is up in the air.  How we do logistics is up in the air.  I am not even sure Offence has not stalled for now.  Denial is clearly the “it” thing.  Defence still works (thank gawd).  I like how “hey we really might have to re-think tanks” = “throw everything out”…kinda shows bias right there.

 

 

[Billy Ringo]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/exclusive-interview-with-ukraines-spy-boss-from-his-dc-hotel-room

Interesting answers from from the War Zone's interview with Budanov, does he know something--or just stirring the pot?

TWZ: Who killed former Wagner leader Yevgeny Prigozhin?

KB: I wouldn’t be in a hurry to say he’s killed.

TWZ: You think he might be alive?

KB: I just wouldn't rush with that question. I don't possess any confirmation.

TWZ: You don’t have confirmation that he’s dead yet?

KB: We don’t possess that.

[The_Capt]

40 minutes ago, Fernando said:

What is the argument used to defend infantry that in practice are dropping like flies with losses that no NATO army has suffered since World War II? Which is cheap, much cheaper than complex weapons such as MBTs, fighter-bombers, attack helicopters, etc. and that can be replaced very quickly. But infantry is NOT cheap. You may not lose a lot of money every time an infantryman is killed or incapacitated, but you do pay a disproportionate price in blood and lives, which is also a price to take into account.

Ok and here we separate the amateurs from the pros.  You have to create two parts of your soul to do this work, that is something very few people really understand.  In one part there is the value of a human being, in the other the value of a human fighting system.  Don’t mix them together or you can’t do this work.

Infantry is incredibly cheap to produce and sustain from a military value point of view.  We have 8 billion human beings on this planet.  Ukraine has around 44 million.  Even at 10% fighting capable, that is 4 million troops they can put into action.  Training and equipping those troops is not cheap but is can be done relatively quickly.  You can turn a civilian into a soldier in about 6 weeks (or less).  Right now Russia can produce about 200 tanks per year.  We in the west are not much better.  We don’t have 8 billion “civilianized tanks” to pull from.  Production wise tanks are extremely expensive and very low density.  It is disingenuous to try and link their battlefield vulnerabilities as a metric and ignore their sustainment realities.  It is also really poor to try and play a “oh the humanity” card in defence of freakin tanks.

The idea that we should somehow “send tanks and AFVs to war not people” is ridiculous, and I honestly hope I am misunderstanding.  The reality is that losses of armour and AFVs are demonstrating that as capability they are unsustainable in their current employment.  Basic dog-faced infantry are, and frankly are about the only thing holding either side together on the ground right now.  Tanks and AFVs are not staying alive long enough to get value out of them, infantry are.

51 minutes ago, Fernando said:

If I remember correctly, many Ukrainian infantrymen said that the greatest danger to them is a tank, and that is why all efforts are used to destroy them. If there are no tanks left, those efforts (drones, PGMs, etc.) are dedicated to destroying other objectives, but the priority for front line infantrymen almost always are tanks.

I have been reading this forum and just about everything I can find on this war and have not seen that sentiment at all. Infantry seem far more worried about artillery and UAS in this war.  Tanks are a threat, right up until they are dead and they got pushed back, with helicopters in this war very early on.  If you remove all the systems to kill/oppose the tank?  Sure then we are back in time and the tank has a central role.  But we cannot “unsee” the events of this war.

Look you guys love tanks and still see a core role for them.  That is great.  I disagree and argue that the trend is towards marginalization and narrowing of what armour is going to be able to do for us.  As with the last iterations we have seen the usual arguments - Shield systems will preserve the role of the tank, infantry are vulnerable but we still use them, can’t get rid of the tank because nothing else can do its job, tanks is still dangerous, the role of the tank still needs to be filled, we have been here before and a new one, “think of the people”.

Can’t speak for everyone but I am still not sold.  Too much evidence against, not enough for.  Too big, too expensive, too slow to reproduce for the environment it finds itself in.  The recipe for extinction on this planet for millions of years.

[FancyCat]

Manpower is probably the most valuable resource among Western nations (cause I prefer not venturing into other countries beyond) and the most politically vulnerable to lose. Nothing cheap about that. I mean review Ukraine's own political and social concerns around their soldiers. Consider how that is a clear marker of difference between Russia and Ukraine, and how the ensuring pleading from Ukraine has been for what keeps their soldiers alive. Artillery, western tanks, IFVs, APCs, despite the amounts of Soviet hardware given, it has always been Ukrainian preference for Western hardware and vehicles.

Also, ATVs, quad-bikes? I haven't seen one video of Ukrainians on a ATV or quad-bike. Are these armored popemobiles? I fail to see how anyone would willingly take a IFV or APC to the front instead of a ATV or quadbike.

[FancyCat]

1 minute ago, The_Capt said:

Ok and here we separate the amateurs from the pros.  You have to create two parts of your soul to do this work, that is something very few people really understand.  In one part there is the value of a human being, in the other the value of a human fighting system.  Don’t mix them together or you can’t do this work.

Infantry is incredibly cheap to produce and sustain from a military value point of view.  We have 8 billion human beings on this planet.  Ukraine has around 44 million.  Even at 10% fighting capable, that is 4 million troops they can put into action.  Training and equipping those troops is not cheap but is can be done relatively quickly.  You can turn a civilian into a soldier in about 6 weeks (or less).  Right now Russia can produce about 200 tanks per year.  We in the west are not much better.  We don’t have 8 billion “civilianized tanks” to pull from.  Production wise tanks are extremely expensive and very low density.  It is disingenuous to try and link their battlefield vulnerabilities as a metric and ignore their sustainment realities.  It is also really poor to try and play a “oh the humanity” card in defence of freakin tanks.

The idea that we should somehow “send tanks and AFVs to war not people” is ridiculous, and I honestly hope I am misunderstanding.  The reality is that losses of armour and AFVs are demonstrating that as capability they are unsustainable in their current employment.  Basic dog-faced infantry are, and frankly are about the only thing holding either side together on the ground right now.  Tanks and AFVs are not staying alive long enough to get value out of them, infantry are.

You can't divorce the military from political-social tho and by far the biggest weak point for the West and Ukraine isnt tank production, not the cost to make a tank and it turning into melted rust, or the money, it's the cost of the dead Ukrainian soldier and the potential cost of a dead NATO soldier embroiled in Ukraine that weighs upon political-social and accordingly military policies.

[The_Capt]

17 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

You can't divorce the military from political-social tho and by far the biggest weak point for the West and Ukraine isnt tank production, not the cost to make a tank and it turning into melted rust, or the money, it's the cost of the dead Ukrainian soldier and the potential cost of a dead NATO soldier embroiled in Ukraine that weighs upon political-social and accordingly military policies.

As a professional soldier who has led men and women in combat the cost of a single person to too high.  But in order to make war, let alone win one, you have to box that one up or you will be useless in a week.  The human cost of a war is something that is in the calculus but if you let it drive the agenda it will only make things worse.  This is why politicians (and the people, in democracies) need to be damn sure they understand what this thing is.  We are talking about using people as ammunition, no dressing it up, no sugar coating it.  We use them as ammunition for effects, effects to decision, decision within options, options + decisions = outcomes.  

Human cost in war should not and cannot drive the agenda (although it very often does).  We enter into the lands of vengeance and fear too deeply.  If Ukraine let the shocking human cost drive their thinking then they would have surrender on Day One.  No they understand that cost but they are spending their young people for a reason worth that cost.

Now to try and play the “blood” card in defence of tanks, well that is just poor form.  People as a military capability are a completely different set of metrics.  Cold, harsh metrics but not the same in any way to human being costs.  Muddling the two is a fast path to really bad strategy and emotional arguments, not professional military advice.

[FancyCat]

1 minute ago, The_Capt said:

Human cost in war should not and cannot drive the agenda (although it very often does).  We enter into the lands of vengeance and fear too deeply.  If Ukraine let the shocking human cost drive their thinking then they would have surrender on Day One.  No they understand that cost but they are spending their young people for a reason worth that cost.

Someone correct me if mistaken, but isn't part of the calculus on the part of Ukraine to fight in the face of such human costs against Russia, is based on the idea that Russia, as seen in how it's using and treating it's manpower as ammunition, expendable and worth little, will only subsume Ukraine and Ukrainians for the same purpose if they fold?

In any war morale and belief are important, but considering this war's ethos, and the value Ukrainians have in fighting to not become expendable imperial ammunition, are not considerations for losses not simply reality and essential for analysis and in this case, prediction?

I mean Russia even with a ability to send soldiers dying in appalling and foolish ways is unable, unwilling to mobilize to 10% (or whatever number) precisely due to social-political concerns.

And certainly western countries operate in a reality where the loss of one servicemember can be shocking.

So sure we can produce or procure Soviet tanks and IFVs and APCs for Ukraine but the reality is Ukrainian soldiers on the ground want Western IFVs and APCs and tanks because they get higher chances of living with them, and while they cost more, the West has long gone down the route of survivability.

(On that note why in God's name is the U.S not providing more Bradleys and armored vehicles? No point in a reserve if we never use it and wasn't the point of them for Europe anyway? Send everything already. Not like a Bradley is much use in Taiwan.)

[poesel]

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

Manpower is probably the most valuable resource among Western nations (cause I prefer not venturing into other countries beyond) and the most politically vulnerable to lose.

Yes, if you fight abroad for someone else or an idea.

No, if the Russians march into <your country>. Or anyone else, but in this context it's the Russians.

A misconception which was the downfall of many a dictator.

[akd]

Longer cut of 3rd Assault Brigade clearing Andriivka, seen in parts previously:

 

[cesmonkey]

3 hours ago, poesel said:

It seems it was necessary to make this video which states the obvious. That frightens me a bit. But still a good thing.

 

I had to lookup who was behind this group. Makes sense.

https://gopforukraine.com/2023/08/14/new-2m-republicans-for-ukraine-campaign-launches-around-first-gop-debate-and-congressional-aid-fight/

Quote

Republicans for Ukraine is a project of Defending Democracy Together, led by Bill Kristol and Sarah Longwell.

https://www.defendingdemocracytogether.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicans_for_the_Rule_of_Law
 

Quote

Republicans for the Rule of Law is the principal initiative of the conservative, anti-Donald Trump political group Defending Democracy Together, founded by Bill Kristol, Mona Charen, Linda Chavez, Sarah Longwell, and Andy Zwick in 2019.

 

[cesmonkey]

34 minutes ago, poesel said:

Yes, if you fight abroad for someone else or an idea.

No, if the Russians march into <your country>. Or anyone else, but in this context it's the Russians.

A misconception which was the downfall of many a dictator.

Yes, and no. I'm sure the Finn's in the 1939-1940 Winter War wish didn't have to face an enemy with much deeper manpower reserves  then themselves.

[Tenses]

Ok, I will add another few cents to the "Tank wars" as this seems pretty hot.

First the problem with "Infantry is cheap and easy to replace" problem. This is extreme oversimplification. From military perspective you can say that this is just a few weeks of training and basic gear but there is a problem with that. Young soldiers in their 20s will be having on average about 40 more years to provide value to the society(untill retired). This is a LOT of value in all western democracies. Nations, which don't care about their people like Russia might have a different bill for that, when they send prisoners or alkoholics to the front but for normal countries, price of a young man is much higher. I would not be suprised, if person with higher education on average provided enough value to build an MBT in their lifetime. One can keep things running and generally provide absolute minimum but the other might wirite a few lines of code for Google or whatever, which will bring hundreds of millions. This is economical perspective of course as generally I think this is clear for everyone that life is just priceless. Period. No one should risk anybodys life, if this is not absolutely necessary and there are no other options. Infantry will always be there but with technology it is having less and less on their shoulders, which is a good thing.

Next thing is that tank is going to be obsolete like battleships or heavy cavalry. What needs to be understood is that battleships were replaced by carriers because they provided the same capabilities - long range sea based firepower. Carriers won because they do that a lot better, having much longer range, precision and a lot more firepower than even the mightiest of battleships. The only thing they lacked was the armour but it was actually obsolete with new longer range weapons(CAG). And heavy cavalry example is a bit funny as tanks actually replaced it. They did that because they provided the same capability in a better way. During history armour or defense in general was overmached repeatidly many times until a new solution appeared. We are in this situation right now and this is actually second time for tanks in their history, when this happens(I am looking at you Leo 1). This doesn't mean that we will leave our tanks, AFVs and all the stuff and go on foot because that is "cheap" and "logistics friendly". We will upgrade, turn to UGV, APS, Battlemechs, lasers, plasma cannons. Freaking force fields, I don't know. But certainly no infantry or drone swarms will provide the same capability as tank or whatever it might be called in the future. Drones are actually precision guided munitions and the only vehicles, which might feel threatend by it to be replaced is classical artillery, because(suprise) they provide the same capability.

We can see by the newly announced plans for M1E3, what will be next direction. Lighter vehicle, with all new tech integrated by default like APS and remote controlled weapons. Might be optionally manned but this was not actually stated. This confirms that we are not seeing the end of tank, we are seeing that currently passive armour is overmatched by different threaths and we are building new Leo 1 for new battlefield. Will this be immune to drone swarms and PGMs? Of course not. Will this be more survivable and in effect, provide direct fire support as an apex predator in 2km range? Yes it will.

[Bannon]

Congratulations on this intelligent and respectful debate on the future of armor.

My question is, how would this discussion differ had Russia invaded a NATO country? I may be wrong, but I assume NATO possess capabilities that would have allowed maneuver warfare and therby unleashing more of the potential of armor.

[hcrof]

55 minutes ago, Tenses said:

Ok, I will add another few cents to the "Tank wars" as this seems pretty hot.

First the problem with "Infantry is cheap and easy to replace" problem. This is extreme oversimplification. From military perspective you can say that this is just a few weeks of training and basic gear but there is a problem with that. Young soldiers in their 20s will be having on average about 40 more years to provide value to the society(untill retired). This is a LOT of value in all western democracies. Nations, which don't care about their people like Russia might have a different bill for that, when they send prisoners or alkoholics to the front but for normal countries, price of a young man is much higher. I would not be suprised, if person with higher education on average provided enough value to build an MBT in their lifetime. One can keep things running and generally provide absolute minimum but the other might wirite a few lines of code for Google or whatever, which will bring hundreds of millions. This is economical perspective of course as generally I think this is clear for everyone that life is just priceless. Period. No one should risk anybodys life, if this is not absolutely necessary and there are no other options. Infantry will always be there but with technology it is having less and less on their shoulders, which is a good thing.

Next thing is that tank is going to be obsolete like battleships or heavy cavalry. What needs to be understood is that battleships were replaced by carriers because they provided the same capabilities - long range sea based firepower. Carriers won because they do that a lot better, having much longer range, precision and a lot more firepower than even the mightiest of battleships. The only thing they lacked was the armour but it was actually obsolete with new longer range weapons(CAG). And heavy cavalry example is a bit funny as tanks actually replaced it. They did that because they provided the same capability in a better way. During history armour or defense in general was overmached repeatidly many times until a new solution appeared. We are in this situation right now and this is actually second time for tanks in their history, when this happens(I am looking at you Leo 1). This doesn't mean that we will leave our tanks, AFVs and all the stuff and go on foot because that is "cheap" and "logistics friendly". We will upgrade, turn to UGV, APS, Battlemechs, lasers, plasma cannons. Freaking force fields, I don't know. But certainly no infantry or drone swarms will provide the same capability as tank or whatever it might be called in the future. Drones are actually precision guided munitions and the only vehicles, which might feel threatend by it to be replaced is classical artillery, because(suprise) they provide the same capability.

We can see by the newly announced plans for M1E3, what will be next direction. Lighter vehicle, with all new tech integrated by default like APS and remote controlled weapons. Might be optionally manned but this was not actually stated. This confirms that we are not seeing the end of tank, we are seeing that currently passive armour is overmatched by different threaths and we are building new Leo 1 for new battlefield. Will this be immune to drone swarms and PGMs? Of course not. Will this be more survivable and in effect, provide direct fire support as an apex predator in 2km range? Yes it will.

A carrier does not provide the same capability as a battleship, nor does a tank provide the same capability as heavy cavalry (also, heavy cavalry disappeared long before the tank was invented). We should stop bemoaning the death of the tank and concentrate on its role in the wider system. 

Direct fire to 2km - what is that for? Why do we want direct fire? It is not about capabilities it is about the overall effect on the enemy. Heavy cavalry probably always wanted longer and sharper lances but their role does not exist any more so who needs a lance? 

A system designed to break through the enemy line and destroy enemy logistics? Great until you realise that it will be likely be spotted and destroyed before it gets into range, especially if you mass them into useful numbers. Artillery can hit a tank from 40km, himars from further, drones from anywhere. And wont a swarm of ai directed drones attacking logistics routes have a similar effect without the need for a breakthrough? 

So the tank gets relegated into penny packets acting as assault guns, but then why not go for a cheaper system which are harder to spot and more capable of navigating difficult terrain (i.e. lighter)? 

The tank defenders need to tell us how a system designed for the 20th century is supposed to fit into a battlefield that is much more transparent and deadly. 2km direct fire means nothing when a tank company can be spotted and engaged 10km before they reach the enemy. Edit: to give another analogy, a breech loading rifle did not just replace a musket - the whole system had to change. 

 

Edited September 24, 2023 by hcrof
Example