How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Kinophile]

https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/in-wars-wake-russias-ethnic-minorities-renew-independence-dream/

Creeeek... Creeeeakk

[akd]

knock-knock...

 

[kimbosbread]

That’s what we are talking about. What’s the point of direct fire when you have a munition that can go around corners, decide meh maybe not let’s try the other side? And it’s cheap as hell?

[danfrodo]

UKR update from one of my usual suspects.  Calls it best week of the year for UKR.  Lots of corrosion and making solid progress against RU west of Verbove.  Also he reported claims by an RU guy saying bakhmut area losing 100-150 wounded per day.  

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/9/24/2195169/-Ukraine-Update-Ukraine-just-had-its-best-week-of-the-year

and a couple interesting nuggets here

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/9/24/2195181/-More-Russian-stuff-blowing-up-plus-Ukraine-launches-attacks-in-Kursk

 

[chrisl]

33 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

That’s what we are talking about. What’s the point of direct fire when you have a munition that can go around corners, decide meh maybe not let’s try the other side? And it’s cheap as hell?

Speed.

Drones like that are effective against static or slow targets, but if you have a target of opportunity and can hit it with something that has a sighting-to-hitting time of a few seconds, you can get it before it disappears/moves out of range/hides somewhere else.  Drones are tens of meters/second, rockets & missiles a few hundred m/s (5 to 10x faster than drones), and direct fire guns ~1500 m/s (5 to 8x faster than ATGMs).

Edited September 24, 2023 by chrisl

[FancyCat]

6 hours ago, pintere said:

Never thought I’d live to see the day when a Waffen SS veteran would receive a standing ovation in the parliament of a western country! 

For context, the man is 98 yr old Yaroslav Hunk, a former member of the 14. Waffen-Grenadier-Division of the SS "Galicia".

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/anthony-rota-ukrainian-veteran-apology-1.6977117

 

absolute lack of vetting, idiots. 

Quote

Speaker of the House Anthony Rota apologized Sunday for honouring a man who fought in a Nazi unit during the Second World War.

Rota was responding to condemnation from Jewish groups and others stemming from a moment during Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's visit to Parliament on Friday. During the visit, Rota said the man was "a Ukrainian hero, a Canadian hero, and we thank him for all his service."

Those gathered in the House responded with applause and a standing ovation.

"I have subsequently become aware of more information which causes me to regret my decision to [honour Hunka]. I wish to make clear that no one, including fellow parliamentarians and the Ukraine delegation, was aware of my intention or of my remarks before I delivered them," Rota said.

"I particularly want to extend my deepest apologies to Jewish communities in Canada and around the world," he added.

Rota said he accepted "full responsibility" for his actions.

In a statement, the Prime Minister's Office said the decision to invite and honour Hunka was made by the Speaker's office alone.

"The independent Speaker of the House has apologized and accepted full responsibility for issuing the invitation and for the recognition in Parliament. This was the right thing to do," said a PMO spokesperson.

 

[Fenris]

I keep seeing this.  Why do the Leo's drive around with their turrets pointing to the rear?

 

[JonS]

58 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

That’s what we are talking about. What’s the point of direct fire when you have a munition that can go around corners, decide meh maybe not let’s try the other side? And it’s cheap as hell?

It's also slow as hell. These are nice for H&I, but if you want to maintain any kind of tempo, leave them in the box.

[dan/california]

25 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/anthony-rota-ukrainian-veteran-apology-1.6977117

 

absolute lack of vetting, idiots. 

 

This was definitely not a great move by the Canadian politician in question, but it is by no means the worst vetting failure in post WW2 history. 

 

Quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Waldheim#:~:text=Kurt Josef Waldheim (German%3A [,Austria from 1986 to 1992.

Werner Von braun also got by rather well by repeating "I build the best rockets". To be fair, he was telling the truth, about that part.

Edit: I mean they asked two out of the three important questions , Were you born in Ukraine? Did you serve in the war? They just skipped on the rather important third one. For which side?

Edited September 24, 2023 by dan/california

[JonS]

1 hour ago, Fenris said:

I keep seeing this.  Why do the Leo's drive around with their turrets pointing to the rear?

I assume that's an admin move. Rotating the turret avoids impaling the barrel in a tree or building - the barrels are long, and stick out a long way.

Edited September 25, 2023 by JonS

[Offshoot]

21 minutes ago, Fenris said:

I keep seeing this.  Why do the Leo's drive around with their turrets pointing to the rear?

 

They might be worried about hitting something and popping the top as happened earlier.

[Battlefront.com]

7 hours ago, Fernando said:

Please, Steve, review what you have written. I agree with you on many things, and you are  one of the few  people with the most vision and capability to analyze this war I have ever seen, but right now, in this response, it seems to me that you are almost speaking like a French general might have spoken on May 9, 1940, the day before the German Blitzkrieg 

I could make a better argument that the pro-tank people sound like the horse cavalry guys right before WW1 and then before WW2.

The tank is dead not because there's some new and untried theory that says we don't need them any more.  No, the tank is dead because there's an extensive array of things which can do the job of a tank better and magnitudes cheaper with vastly greater versatility.  Which gets to this point:

6 hours ago, Kraft said:

and yet the countries at war do everything in their power to aquire new tanks, build tank factories and restore old and damaged tanks.

Enough evidence of FPV drones hitting a tank several times and it remains operational. Those 6 guys wont cross a field and blast through defences with their drone. They'll wound or kill a conscript, or lose the drone to EW and the front changes not by a single meter.

Imagine desert storm but with FPV drones?? Every tool has its use - and the men inside the systems put efforts into getting both, not either. Nobody is calling for Ukrainian battleships.

Had the Leopard/Abrams debacle been solved at Day1 of the war, we'd have seen Tanks rolling in a thunder down south to the coast last autumn blasting through conscript positions like they did up north. Wasting a year on political tip toeing for the biggest defensive line since ww2 to be build does not make the tank dead.

Its like claiming the role of attack choppers is dead, in the current situation, they are limited, reduce density of AA coverage and it'll turn back into the Afghanistan / Iraq turkey shoot videos where 2 guys in the air do what several companies would be needed for, with casulties.

It is as if you are only paying attention to 1/4 of the argument that tanks are dead.  Your points have been addressed many times and it boils down to the replacement for tanks is emerging and is not 100% ready to take its place.  Looking at the status quo as proof that the future will not change doesn't work out so well when the arguments for change are so massively strong and the arguments for status quo are horribly weak.

The tank and the attack helicopter still have battlefield utility, but ONLY if they do not try to do all the things they were designed to do.  That should be a massive red flag that both are doomed because the technology they need to regain (not maintain, REGAIN) their former role is a much steeper hill to climb than the increase of the technology currently humbling them.

Tanks and attack helicopters have lost the race.  Fixed wing aircraft and surface ships are still in the running, but they're not looking so good either.

6 hours ago, Kraft said:

Had the Leopard/Abrams debacle been solved at Day1 of the war, we'd have seen Tanks rolling in a thunder down south to the coast last autumn blasting through conscript positions like they did up north.

This indicates that you aren't really grasping this war.  Ukraine was never going to have a blitzkrieg in the south.  Never.  A slightly better tank was never, ever, in a million years going to change that equation.  All it would do is what we've seen the best Western armor do so far... blow up just as easily as ex-Soviet junk, but with crews and passengers that get to walk away instead of turned to piles of carbon.

6 hours ago, hcrof said:

Since I have nothing better to do, here is a thought experiment: 

The latest western tanks cost $10m and weigh 70t. They have a crew of 4 and at least half that again in dedicated sustainers so say 6 soldiers. They have an annual operating cost of $1m (according to Google, don't quote me on that!), and fire rounds that cost $3k each.

Will that system defeat 6 infantry soldiers armed with $1k fpv drones with a range of 5-10km? Or a UGV with a smart mortar, some drone scouts and 6 maintainers/operators? 

Oh, it's even worse for tanks than what you described.  While there is no war the worker contributes to the economy while the tank subtracts from it.

Abrams were last fully needed in 2003/2004.  Let's just say 20 years to go with an even number.  Let's say that the US Army goes to war with Russia tomorrow and those tanks are now used again.  Well, the sunk cost for each tank is minimum $30m going into the war ($10m for production, $20m to keep it functional). In reality that tank was probably upgraded at least once, which (quick check) was about $750k for a SEPv2 to SEPv3 upgrade.  Let's round up and say $31m.  Now, let's double that to equate to the lifetime of a worker (roughly 40 years) and we have a lifetime cost of fielding an Abrams at roughly $62m against the lifetime earnings of perhaps $5m for the average worker.  Using this stupidly rough calculation you can lose 10 soldiers for every Abrams and break even on lifetime cost.

6 hours ago, Kinophile said:

A heavy-effect, mobile, direct fire weapon will always exist.

Ah, just like battleships

The premise you make is flawed because you are once again conflating military role with a specific systems.  A military force only has a tank because it fulfills a need, not because it is written in some religious text that "thou shalt always have a heavy direct fire mobile platform".  The whole argument here is that there is an array of things which can do the job better and vastly cheaper than the tank can.  Once militaries figure this out (and it will take a long time, unfortunately) the tank will be retired as so many beloved and useful things have been in the past.  That is why the tank (and other heavy AFVs) are heading towards retirement, not because the need they fulfill is.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

22 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

They might be worried about hitting something and popping the top as happened earlier.

I'd say that is an excellent guess!  It's like mom always said... don't run with scissors with the pointy bit facing forward, and don't drive your Leo's with the gun forward.

Steve

[dan/california]

You don't want to be these guys....

[Ultradave]

The nice thing about being FA is that we stay out of all that branch rancor because we know we just support. In fact our DIVARTY motto was "We Support."

I know on occasion moving with the barrel facing rear is as mentioned, protection from damage, especially maneuvering in close quarters like city or town streets where no enemy contact is expected. Hard to get around corners with that main gun leading the way. Hit something hard and your gun is toast. Hit something soft and the soft thing (wooden building) is toast. Let the gun follow and you can tweak the turret to follow around the corner and not swing into something. 

Dave

 

[Kinophile]

32 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

 

Ah, just like battleships

The premise you make is flawed because you are once again conflating military role with a specific systems.  A military force only has a tank because it fulfills a need, not because it is written in some religious text that "thou shalt always have a heavy direct fire mobile platform".  The whole argument here is that there is an array of things which can do the job better and vastly cheaper than the tank can.  Once militaries figure this out (and it will take a long time, unfortunately) the tank will be retired as so many beloved and useful things have been in the past.  That is why the tank (and other heavy AFVs) are heading towards retirement, not because the need they fulfill is.

Steve

I think you're being a bit literal with the term 'tank'.  I'm no battleship/mbt nut but where on any battlefield would there not be a use for a mobile, heavy-effect (you missed my subtlety, for Shame) direct fire platform. Also I specifically omitted heavy armored - but you missed that too! I feel so ignored,  the ugly girl at the prom. 

The effects part is where my emphasis is,  not the armored. The latter is where modern mbts are like butterball turkeys,  (a truly disgusting variant on a mediocre meat- fight me). 

I can see a future manned tank operating as the nucleas of an unmanned platoon of 3-4 heavy effect UGVs.  Not quite the loyal wingman idea of the USAF et al, more directly used instead of the command tank,  itself equivalently armed so it can pitch in as needed. 

 

[MikeyD]

Sherman, Pershing, Patton and (I think) M60 were  fitted with gun laying equipment for indirect fire and they were of some utility as protected light artillery. Ukraine and Russia are both using their tanks for indirect fire. An expert will have to pop in and tell us if Leopard 2 and Abrams are kitted for indirect fire (WWII German tanks weren't). Army's new light(ish) (42 ton) M10 tank has the designation MPF, or 'mobile protected firepower'. Tanks may be out of the job of medieval knight charging into the teeth of the enemy but that doesn't mean they're out of a job.

[chrisl]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Tanks and attack helicopters have lost the race.  Fixed wing aircraft and surface ships are still in the running, but they're not looking so good either.

All of those will still have a role in delivering the smaller stuff into operating range, much like aircraft carriers, but big, slow, and expensive isn't looking like a winning combination in the danger zones.  And the danger zones are getting wider and wider.

[The_Capt]

7 hours ago, JonS said:

It's not really that new though? "Think of the people" was pretty much the genesis of the tank in the first place, and the core of US and UK doctrine throughout WWII, and the central plank of NATO doctrine for the last 70-odd years.

No it wasn’t.  It was about victory.  If they wanted to stop the killing they could have done it much sooner any number of ways.  Or here is a crazy idea, don’t start the war in the first place.

The tank was not about the preservation of human life on the Western Front, it was about breakthrough and killing more Germans.  It was about winning.  Both sides had spent millions of lives in that useless war by 1917 and it wasn’t compassion or sanctity of human life that drove them to create the tank, it was the fact that they were afraid they were running out before the other side would.

They saw humans as a resource they were at risk of running out of so they needed to break the deadlock, breakout and yield a victory.  Victory is all that mattered and why they were slaughtering a generation in the first place.  The idea of “hey we need a machine because too many lads are dying.  Huh, oh yes send them over the top again for now” is absurd.

In any war one tries to reduce loss of human life for largely resource reasons.  A human being is extremely replaceable…we have a lot of them.  And once wars of this scale start it is all about preserving resources because resources equal options.  The value of human life in war rests solely on its utility to prosecute the war and drive it towards winning - this is the harsh calculus I keep talking about. Does anyone think Ukraine is going to hit a magic number of 18 year olds, do some math on their lifetime earning power and go “oops that was the one too many…we surrender”? Or that is some basement they have done the maths on how many they would have lost under Russian rule and when they cross that line they will also quit….no freakin way.  

You guys all wanna be pro-Ukrainian hawks?  No comprise, no surrender?  Well welcome to the harsh reality of the business.  Of course the UA should not throw their people’s lives away - no professional military should.  But do not think for a second they won’t spend those young people toward victory for as long as they can.  Until it breaks the Ukrainian will to fight (which is pretty far off as of now) or Ukraine runs out of fighting aged adults - and plenty of nations have then gone on and sent in children and old people.

In war people are no longer people.  They are part of a big machine smashing and grinding away at another machine.  They are fuel we keep feeding into those machines.  How efficient the machine is on burning them up is based on how professional a military is or how desperate the situation is.  

Take any high minded thoughts about “humanity” and save them for when the war is over, and then really remember them so we don’t keep doing this (but we will).  This is about more Russians dying faster than Ukrainians until the Russian military organization breaks.  And only military capabilities that can make that happen are going to continue to thrive and survive on the modern battlefield.

[chris talpas]

Weekly dose of Perun.  Tangentially related in that he is talking unmanned vehicles of an aerial kind

 

[Jr Buck Private]

4 hours ago, akd said:

knock-knock...

 

How is anyone supposed to sleep anywhere near the front lines?   Almost seems unfair ... oh well ... they could always go home if they don't like it. 

[Offshoot]

In a similar vein, this is not a development of drones but of flying skills. These pilots are using FPV drones to put explosives through vertically oriented gaps without losing the drone - https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/16qyb3g/new_technique_by_the_kamikaze_drone_operators/

 

[kimbosbread]

3 hours ago, JonS said:

It's also slow as hell. These are nice for H&I, but if you want to maintain any kind of tempo, leave them in the box.

It’s only slow because there’s a human flying it. Otherwise it can be going at 160kmh while maneuvering, if fpv racing drones are anything to go by.

The scary part of many of these systems is that by removing the human from the loop, they are faster, deadlier, cheaper, etc.

[chrisl]

15 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

It’s only slow because there’s a human flying it. Otherwise it can be going at 160kmh while maneuvering, if fpv racing drones are anything to go by.

The scary part of many of these systems is that by removing the human from the loop, they are faster, deadlier, cheaper, etc.

That’s still just 45 m/s compared to 1500 m/s of a direct fire cannon.

[dan/california]

52 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

It’s only slow because there’s a human flying it. Otherwise it can be going at 160kmh while maneuvering, if fpv racing drones are anything to go by.

The scary part of many of these systems is that by removing the human from the loop, they are faster, deadlier, cheaper, etc.

Exactly this, and the way to maintain your operational tempo is to have a a flight of a hundred as your near leading edge. Depending on the exact way the tech develops you might want some really low signature sensor only models out front. Then if your the Chinese, you tell them to kill anything that moves in front your continuously adjusted phase line. If you are NATO they send you photo as they start their run and ask if this is something they shouldn't kill. BTW we need a way to STOP the bad guys doing the same thing. Either counter drone drones or lasers need to get done in double quick time.

Edit: I would give better than even odds the Ukrainians get a fair bit of the way to this by next summer.

Edited September 25, 2023 by dan/california