How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Lethaface]

On 10/30/2023 at 11:44 AM, The_Capt said:

And “raccoon stealing”…let’s not forget that.  As if raccoons have no agency of their own!  

Emptying our raccoon churches and filling them with ambiguously self-identifying marmots…wake up sheeple!

And that's how a misplaced racoon lost Russia the war. I'm not a meme producer or avid consumer but I'd guess this is good source material.

[Lethaface]

23 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Right, knew someone was going to pitch those.  So take a hard look at those wars and the role religion really played:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Protestantism/Events-under-Charles-I

Religion while central, was employed as a wedge or leverage mechanism.  Not the primary cause of the war itself, which was almost always about power balance between rulers.  Religion was used to light fires under masses to convince them to support one side over the other, not a true objectives of war.  There are exceptions, such as the Muslim expansions of the Caliphate era in the 7th century, but cynically these were also about power and resources.

Religion tends to be flavoring and energized to make wars happen harder and not core reasons.  Even the Crusades have been re-examined: 

" Crusaders did not only fight for control of the Holy Land; they also worked to secure the Church’s power in Europe. Like the wars against the Muslims, these conflicts were promoted by various popes in Christ’s name and led by crusaders who took vows and received special privileges and indulgences. The “enemies” of the Church in Europe included people who were not Christians. It also included Christians who were labeled heretics, that is, people who challenged the official teachings of the Church or who questioned the pope’s power and authority."

https://dcc.newberry.org/?p=14390

So I call BS on most of this to be honest.  Northern Ireland:

"However, this Northern Irish conflict was not divided on theological lines but instead on those of class and politics, as those who had been so long oppressed were demanding change, equality and freedom. This paper explores the variety of factors which truly influenced the conflict in Northern Ireland and led to the Troubles, shaping what Northern Ireland is today."

https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1241&context=younghistorians

We can do this all day. Bin Laden wasn't doing it because God told him to.  He was looking for some sort of weird Caliphate 2.0 that would put him in power so he could marry Whitney Houston: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS360594553620120214 

In reality macro-social constructs have rarely (if ever) gone to war over a social issue such as religion.  They have definitely used it and the impulse of faith is incredibly powerful, but do not believe for a second that secular power dynamics, along with good old fashion human failings such as jealousy, greed and fear, are far more prevalent in causes for war.  A really interesting question is whether or not humanity would be better or worse off without religion.

Now in micro-social context, especially pre-history, you might have a workable angle here.   Smaller groups of people and far deeper spiritual integration into society.   

Yup, belief systems are a very effective way of getting people to push your cart. In fact it might be the most effective way of controlling the masses. The holy Emprah wills it!!

 

[dan/california]

3 hours ago, Zeleban said:

https://mil.in.ua/uk/news/povernys-zhyvym-peredav-pershi-spetsialni-prytsily-dlya-mk-19/

The design department of the "come back alive" foundation has developed an artillery-type sight for the mk 19 grenade launcher. This sight allows indirect fire from this grenade launcher. The fund managed to collect 13 million UAH, which will provide 150 grenade launcher crews. Previously, the Ukrainian military complained that the mk19 does not have sights for indirect fire, unlike the AGS-17. The capabilities of this support weapon will now be expanded

I have been arguing for this for fifteen years, literally.

[dan/california]

 

[dan/california]

 

[dan/california]

I wouldn't say this is a consensus view, but it is certainly a hopeful thought.

[Battlefront.com]

36 minutes ago, dan/california said:

 

His point about destroying 80% of the attacking infantry is all well and good, but it still is difficult to deal with the remaining 20% due to combat fatigue and using up ready ammunition.  People who do not understand that all of these small incremental gains at high costs for the Russians do add up.  Provided Russia is willing and able to sustain those losses, eventually Ukraine will lose Avdiivka.  This was the lesson of Bakhmut and it should never be forgotten.

The other lesson of Bakhmut is that losing the prime objective to the Russians doesn't really matter militarily because the history of Russian advances is that by the time they take something they have exhausted their resources.  Exploitation is not a realistic threat.

The question on everybody's mind now is "will Avdiivka turn into another Bakhmut?"  It is a good question to ask, but I am more interested in "how many more Bakhmut 'victories' can Russia sustain?" and only slightly less important "how many more Bakhmut defenses can Ukraine sustain?"  It feels like the answer for both questions might be the same... not many.

Steve

[akd]

Russian tank gets SMArted:

 

[Harmon Rabb]

Makes sense if this report is accurate. Don't think Russia has enough personnel for them to sit around in Belarus. I doubt Russia is going to try another rush for Kyiv from Belarus anytime soon, like they tried in those crazy early days of the war.

AFU Bradley in action.

Edited October 31, 2023 by Harmon Rabb

[acrashb]

Another indication that MBTs are finished.  Up to nearly 30km away, if the C4ISR loop is tight, boom.  Try APSing your way out of this.

Then the surveillance drone will fly to the next target, and boom again.

 

[Lethaface]

26 minutes ago, Harmon Rabb said:

Makes sense if this report is accurate. Don't think Russia has enough personnel for them to sit around in Belarus. I doubt Russia is going to try another rush for Kyiv from Belarus anytime soon, like they tried in those crazy early days of the war.

AFU Bradley in action.

 

Looks like something achieved a penetration and caused a fuel leak, but indeed most importantly most/all of the crew survived and got away into the Bradley.

[Battlefront.com]

OpEd piece discussing the recent rumors and denials about Putin being dead.  We've seen this many times before, so skepticism is justified.  However, the author of this article, who is definitely skeptical, argues that the real state of Putin's health might not really matter in terms of the impact on internal Russian politics:

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4283716-reports-of-putins-death-might-not-be-greatly-exaggerated/

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

41 minutes ago, Harmon Rabb said:

AFU Bradley in action.

And another Leopard out of action   Fire is from a ruptured fuel tank?

[edit... heh, looks like I didn't need to post this as Lethaface has it covered!]

Steve

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, acrashb said:

Another indication that MBTs are finished.  Up to nearly 30km away, if the C4ISR loop is tight, boom.  Try APSing your way out of this.

Then the surveillance drone will fly to the next target, and boom again.

 

That was a standoff EFP.  Maybe one of these? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMArt_155

Ya, tanks are screwed...calling it.

Edit: akd beat me to it.

Edited October 31, 2023 by The_Capt

[dan/california]

3 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

That was a standoff EFP.  Maybe one of these? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMArt_155

Ya, tanks are screwed...calling it.

Repeating myself, but there is zero reason that exact same stand off EFP warhead can't be delivered by drone instead of 155. In fact it would cost a lot less since it wouldn't have to survive the G force involved in being artillery delivered. Pretty surprised we haven't ALREADY seen this, but we surely will soon.

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Repeating myself, but there is zero reason that exact same stand off EFP warhead can't be delivered by drone instead of 155. In fact it would cost a lot less since it wouldn't have to survive the G force involved in being artillery delivered. Pretty surprised we haven't ALREADY seen this, but we surely will soon.

I am sure such a munition could be made to work with existing payload capacities of octocopters by stripping off all the artillery stuff and dispensing with the complicated fuse in favor of a direct trigger.

However, I think combining SPGs firing PGMs with ISR is the best way to go.  A copter can only carry one of these at a time and is at risk of being spotted and shot down (octo copters are no quad copters!).  The combination of an observation drone and a battery of 155 PGMs at the ready can decimate an entire armored column in minutes.

This is why I think some of the doom saying about artillery systems is misplaced.  I think tanks and other heavy IFVs are out, but I think artillery is here to stay for a long time.  Plus, it gives JonS something to occupy his time and that's in all of our best interests

Steve

[The_Capt]

18 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Repeating myself, but there is zero reason that exact same stand off EFP warhead can't be delivered by drone instead of 155. In fact it would cost a lot less since it wouldn't have to survive the G force involved in being artillery delivered. Pretty surprised we haven't ALREADY seen this, but we surely will soon.

I think yes but it is at the upper end of what current tac UAS can carry.  Can’t find exact weight of sub-munition but likely 5-10 pounds.  Right now though it looks like DPICM armed drones are doing just fine.

EFP submunitions are wave of the future though.  Can’t defeat it with APS or ERA

[dan/california]

26 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I am sure such a munition could be made to work with existing payload capacities of octocopters by stripping off all the artillery stuff and dispensing with the complicated fuse in favor of a direct trigger.

However, I think combining SPGs firing PGMs with ISR is the best way to go.  A copter can only carry one of these at a time and is at risk of being spotted and shot down (octo copters are no quad copters!).  The combination of an observation drone and a battery of 155 PGMs at the ready can decimate an entire armored column in minutes.

This is why I think some of the doom saying about artillery systems is misplaced.  I think tanks and other heavy IFVs are out, but I think artillery is here to stay for a long time.  Plus, it gives JonS something to occupy his time and that's in all of our best interests

Steve

Definitely not trying to say artillery is going away. Indeed somebody needs to be working on a 70 km version of that same munition. There also needs to be a GMLRS warhead that can deliver enough of them to delete a company of armor at once. It just needs to be hammered home continuously that drones are, at most, at the stage that airplanes were in 1915. We haven't seen anything yet.

[Lethaface]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

And another Leopard out of action   Fire is from a ruptured fuel tank?

[edit... heh, looks like I didn't need to post this as Lethaface has it covered!]

Steve

I saw another video on X where it appeared to get hit in the rear, engine compartment. Supposedly around Adiivka, I guess part of a mobile arm. reserve to counter new attacks? 

At least the crew looked like they can return to the fight after some R&R!

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

I saw another video on X where it appeared to get hit in the rear, engine compartment. Supposedly around Adiivka, I guess part of a mobile arm. reserve to counter new attacks? 

At least the crew looked like they can return to the fight after some R&R!

47th Mech was moved to Avdiivka a week or two ago, so it is probably them as they operate both Leo2 and Bradley.

Unfortunately only 2 crew members are seen evacuating.  Hopefully the other two were already out and off screen.

Steve

[Lethaface]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

47th Mech was moved to Avdiivka a week or two ago, so it is probably them as they operate both Leo2 and Bradley.

Unfortunately only 2 crew members are seen evacuating.  Hopefully the other two were already out and off screen.

Steve

I thought I saw a third one in a single frame, hopefully driver and 4th crew could exit to front hatches covered in smoke or  indeed were already out. 

[Probus]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

I think yes but it is at the upper end of what current tac UAS can carry.  Can’t find exact weight of sub-munition but likely 5-10 pounds.  Right now though it looks like DPICM armed drones are doing just fine.

EFP submunitions are wave of the future though.  Can’t defeat it with APS or ERA

Do you think AFVs will be able to adapt to the new battlefield?  It would have to be some kind of next gen tank with top armor as a priority. Really all round HEAT defeating armor. And APS systems that detect and shoot down drones (and their munitions). Gonna be a complicated battle space. 

[Hapless]

17 minutes ago, Probus said:

Do you think AFVs will be able to adapt to the new battlefield?  It would have to be some kind of next gen tank with top armor as a priority. Really all round HEAT defeating armor. And APS systems that detect and shoot down drones (and their munitions). Gonna be a complicated battle space. 

If we're looking at a battlespace where high signature vehicles are prohibitively vulnerable and low signature infantry is simultaenously survivable and lethal (via calling for precision fires), maybe the way forward is less to try and proof AFVs and more to boost infantry mobility and load carrying ability.

Or, in short: Heinlein probably nailed it.

[The_Capt]

5 minutes ago, Probus said:

Do you think AFVs will be able to adapt to the new battlefield?  It would have to be some kind of next gen tank with top armor as a priority. Really all round HEAT defeating armor. And APS systems that detect and shoot down drones (and their munitions). Gonna be a complicated battle space. 

I am not sure.  All AFVs tend to be heavy and hot too.  I don't think we are ready to shed some sort of heavy direct fire support.  My bet is we will likely see unmanned AFVs, while infantry go distributed and light.  They will need carriers but more battle wagons than assault vehicles.  Top armor is a trade off because you either have to accept more weight or go lighter on other sides.  EFP is not HEAT per se, it is a slug of hot metal fired at the vehicle at great speeds.  Sort of if HEAT and AP had an angry murderous baby.

We spent quite a few pages on why the UAS problem is so difficult.  I do not believe APS will save us.  Too many small cheap systems to cope with, backed up by good ol fashion flying steel from artillery. 

So how do we beat such a system?  Well no one really knows right now.  My best guess is through the better use of a similar system.  C4ISR advantage is a must.  Data Superiority, Cognitive Superiority, Learning Superiority.  Using unmanned systems and PGM to destroy an opponents Denial abilities - collapse the Bubble.  And then some sort of hybrid mass that can remain highly distributed but then concentrate rapidly to exploit opportunity.  Lastly, someone has to crack the Riddle of Logistics - The Lies of Want vs Tyranny of Need.  Forces will need to be a lot more self-sustaining.  Zero Tail.  Grande Armee of Energy, type of thinking.

People are getting all excited about Unmanned and AI but Nanotech is around the corner.  And I am not talking Grey Goo.  I am talking manufacturing nano-additives to fuel and explosives.  Not to mention energy storage. 

Complicated indeed.

[The_Capt]

6 minutes ago, Hapless said:

If we're looking at a battlespace where high signature vehicles are prohibitively vulnerable and low signature infantry is simultaenously survivable and lethal (via calling for precision fires), maybe the way forward is less to try and proof AFVs and more to boost infantry mobility and load carrying ability.

Or, in short: Heinlein probably nailed it.

Gotta be honest. Kind of where my head goes.  Big problem with energy density here.  A battle suit that basically makes the individual soldier the platform would solve a lot of this.  Combined with nano-tech it would mean that an individual soldier could carry more combat power further and faster while providing protection.  It add the ability to distribute that mass very widely. 

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

But how do you power the damn thing?  An exo-suit with armor will have a lot of weight and the only thing with enough energy to power one is fossil fuels, which is really problematic for many reasons.  So we would need something that can meet or exceed existing fuel energy density to power these things.

This, or one starts looking at human augmentation and/or genetic engineering but if one thinks unmanned is a tempest, just try and dive into that snakepile.