How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

RESOLVED: 'Accuracy over mass is going to win this war'.

Discuss.

(jk, that's like the last 3100 pages)

***

Been seeing a fair number of these kills of AD systems over the last month. I know very little about air defence, so not much sense of how badly each of these 'hurts' Ivan.

So per Wiki, it looks like the Russian Army has about 350 Buk SAM launchers of all types. No count on Zhitel jammers.

This is one of the fundamental contradictions in modern warfare, all jammers, and most air defense systems have to emit detectable radiation to do their job. Jammers, almost by definition have to emit a LOT of it. This can be detected more or less instantly with proper equipment, and then it is just a question of how long the other sides targeting cycle is. 

You can do a lot of things tactically as far as turning things on and off in in various sequences, so hopefully you can't be found before you do something militarily useful, but basic concept is inescapable.

Edited December 18, 2023 by dan/california

[Tux]

4 hours ago, OBJ said:

So maybe flying over the minefields just needs a combination of doctrine and technology to work. Still not sure how the sustainment logistics would work, maybe they fly over too.

As much as I love a good airborne solution I really struggle with how this could be effective.  Just a few starters-for-ten:

1. Presumably you either fly low enough that incoming artillery is arguably more effective against you than if you were on the ground or you fly high enough that you can be shot at by anything bigger than a light machine gun from kms away.  Any higher than that and maybe you start struggling to find enough volunteers...
2. You generate a godawful cacophone throughout the assault, even compared to a ground-based one.  Everyone within a few kms knows you are airborne and roughly where.
3. The assault would not be as fast as you might hope due to the need to find a suitable landing spot and gently slow to a hover before landing.  Otherwise expect a lot of broken ankles and drowned jet-troops.
4. How difficult would it be to mass-produce mines with a light-sensor on top?  If a shadow passes over the mine one charge launches it into the air and then another wipes out nearby jet-troops.  S-mine+.

 

4 hours ago, OBJ said:

At some point I think we also need to account for what is unique in Ukraine, and might not be applicable in all sectors of a wider war.

Yes, absolutely this.  This has been bugging me for ages, too.  Even insofar as this is just a topical discussion on a computer game forum I hope we can try to identify lessons which are Ukraine-specific vs those that should be applied more widely.

How about these?

1. The curious state of airpower: both sides have significant capability but not enough with respect to enemy AD to establish air supremacy and proper subsequent air support campaigns.
2. Rasputitsa and its characteristic division of the year into viable/non-viable campaign seasons (and the concurrent time for rest and reorganisation that all sides can rely on).
3. The enemy.  Russia's combination of materiel quantity, technological competence (if not outright excellence in certain domains) and sheer, fatalistic bloody-mindedness in the face of the traumas of combat is probably unique.  They will lash out at you with high-potential combat power everywhere, all the time.

[AlexUK]

Sitting here it seems fairly obvious. If it is the jammers that are killing the drones, then go after the jammers. Presumably wait until they light up and then get them with whatever can reach them. Rinse and repeat. 

if AD is being used, do the same thing. 

once no more jamming/AD, use mass drones to swamp the area where you plan to attack, using thermals wherever possible. 

Once ready to attack, have loads of drones in the air and as soon as anything is spotted trying to defend, take it out. 
 

im also assuming the US satellites can spot where the helicopters are operating from? HIMARS them. 

I would be recruiting 1000s of drone operators, instead of forming new battalions of troops (or as well as).

I am sure I’m missing something though. 

[Haiduk]

Krynky bridgehead. Next TOS-1A, which was spotted by SOF was destroyed by night drone bomber of 36th marines brigade

Situation in Krynky still heavy for Ukrainian troops, but completely catastrophic for Russian troops

Just some Russian TG messages from there:

They are killing our guys. No EW. They [command] just wait something. 

Krynki. Situation is very hard. Khokhol's artillery fu...ng hit us, we can't supress it, drones like a bees. 

My friend called yesterday. There is meat grinder. Arty and drones hit like fu...g hell. On Tuesday a company in 130 men came there on positiosn. And yesterday so far they were withdrawn to the rear. Only 18 men left.

Tell anybody about bodies evacuation.

There is too hard in Krynki. We can't go out within three days until it's quiet.

  

It's obvious, why NYT issued two days ago pessimistic article with interview of "UKR wounded marines", who told about "useless operationin Krynky", "huge losses". Russia invested huge money now to PsyOps.  Putin on own briefing told "Russian troops has only several sanitarу losses in Krynky, when Ukraine - dozens of killed"

Edited December 18, 2023 by Haiduk

[Battlefront.com]

57 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

So per Wiki, it looks like the Russian Army has about 350 Buk SAM launchers of all types. No count on Zhitel jammers.

According to Oryx, before it was shut down in September, Russia has lost 189 SAM systems since the start of the war.  And like you, I've noticed Ukraine is doing a good job raising that number.

So, if we take the Wikipedia number as gospel (stop snickering at me!) and subtract out the known system losses, then subtract out a couple dozen more since September, we're looking at Russia being down to maybe 1/3rd of its prewar systems.  Most of which are probably concentrated in and around Ukraine.

No wonder Russia seems to have backed off doing provocative moves against NATO aircraft.  If they were to screw up and start a shooting war, I don't think NATO pilots would have much to worry about.

Steve

[Tux]

4 hours ago, kimbosbread said:

Is the problem the minefields, the dug in defenders, the fortifications, their artillery or their drones? If one of these were removed, would the whole thing collapse? Which one would be the easiest to remove?

I mean the trite answer is it's their combination that hurts most but I still think this is a useful question.

I would argue that defenders dug in to fortifications with artillery support has been solved and aren't causing many new problems in this war.  The unholy pair in this war is laaaarge minefields and plentiful drones.  Without the minefields today's drones could be partially defended against by moving fast and/or light.  The Capt's ink-blots would work to neutralise lines of defense.  Without the drones you might be able to leverage stealth and operational confusion to effect a breakthrough in at least one or two places.  As it is though the mines don't allow you to move fast and the drones let the enemy watch you do it.  That then multiplies the effectiveness of artillery and mobilising reserves and, well, here we are.

 

4 hours ago, kimbosbread said:

Drone swarm of autonomous death that kills anything with a few km squared it can find (including landing and waiting for hapless defenders to peek their heads up)… this is technologically feasible, and probably less expensive than many artillery systems + their accompanying logistics and training requirements. But it doesn’t exist yet.

For this war I would warn against trying to come up with a solution that carries out the entire attack for you.  This hell-swarm idea may be a thing in a few years but it's more than is needed now.  The minimum solution that we need today is to undo the effect that attack drones and drone-assisted C4ISR have had, then let your legacy units attack as they were always meant to.  That means finding a way to neutralise the vast majority of enemy drones, at least over a localised area and for at least a day or two.

As OBJ points out (and as others have theorised over the previous 70,000+ posts) the solution could be technical or doctrinal.  Doctrinal might be more efficient (I like LLF's Army-of-Rangers thinking) but would require re-training and potentially re-organisation which would take months, if not years to properly carry out.  A technological solution could theoretically be fielded within weeks of design freeze.

Edited December 18, 2023 by Tux

[Haiduk]

11 minutes ago, AlexUK said:

I would be recruiting 1000s of drone operators, instead of forming new battalions of troops (or as well as).

You will laugh, but our old "oaks" in MoD and General Staff "don't see the need" of additioanl FPV units inside battalions and companies and developning of their usage conception. Some brigade commanders even by own voluntarism disband "non-shtat" UAV teams, returning operators to their "paper" duties - riflemen, logists, etc.

And this is in that time, when drone operators via some well-known volunteers like Sternenko, Prytula etc try to influence on MoD opinion about this. And this is in that time, when "non-shtat" small FPV dron units and "shat" brigade UAV companies successfully are stopping Russian meat assaults, partially compensating lack of artilelry shells. Fu...g "sovok" and skeletal thinking. They to this time though we will win a war with "BMPs - in line order! Infantry following in chain! Go!Go!Go! "

Here is just small part of combined work FPV, dron dropping and artilelry - dozens of Russian bodies left near the fence of coke plant. This location already known as "Fence of the Death". Without drones, Russian already would be fight inside coke plant.

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

27 minutes ago, Tux said:

Yes, absolutely this.  This has been bugging me for ages, too.  Even insofar as this is just a topical discussion on a computer game forum I hope we can try to identify lessons which are Ukraine-specific vs those that should be applied more widely.

We've discussed this a bunch of times, but probably mostly back in 2022 when we were first finding ourselves scratching our heads.  Probably a good time to get into it again.

27 minutes ago, Tux said:

How about these?

1. The curious state of airpower: both sides have significant capability but not enough with respect to enemy AD to establish air supremacy and proper subsequent air support campaigns.
2. Rasputitsa and its characteristic division of the year into viable/non-viable campaign seasons (and the concurrent time for rest and reorganisation that all sides can rely on).
3. The enemy.  Russia's combination of materiel quantity, technological competence (if not outright excellence in certain domains) and sheer, fatalistic bloody-mindedness in the face of the traumas of combat is probably unique.  They will lash out at you with high-potential combat power everywhere, all the time.

I'll add a #4

4.  The friend.  Ukraine started the war with a barely modernized Soviet based arsenal accented by a limited range and quantity of Western weapons.  As the war has gone on the range and quantity have changed and give us hints of what would happen if the Ukrainians were fully equipped with Western kit.  It also started the war with very thin reserves of pretty much everything other than manpower.

5.  Force quality disparity.  Russia's forces started off this conflict in a really sorry state.  One could argue that it's decreased since then, though I'd say it's more of a mixed bag trending towards poorer.  Ukraine's forces, on the other hand, started off better in terms of quality and motivation.  If this had been the inverse or both were even, no doubt that would have affected the outcome of this war very early on.

 

When examining these questions we have to first define what sort of conflict we're going to compare this war to.  One scenario (the most relevant) is NATO getting involved and how that would go.  The other is China.  Let's put China aside and look at NATO.

Every day this war goes on the more convinced I am that if NATO had gone up against Russia in 2022 the war would have ended very quickly.  Primarily because Ukraine, even with all its deficiencies, almost knocked Russia out in March and April.  Even on the most pessimistic day, NATO could muster a force qualitatively better than Ukraine's.  I'm not saying it would be a week of shock and awe before Russia was defeated, but I don't think it would have taken months. 

Now, what if NATO got involved in the war right now?  Russia would be done even quicker because much of the advantages Russia enjoyed at the beginning of this war have been ebbed away.

Would NATO suffer more casualties than it thinks it would?  I don't know any more.  I used to think "yes", but now I don't know.  If it had to fight on the ground through Russian defenses I'd say YES definitely, however given what NATO has witnessed this summer I think they would opt for wiping out Russia's ability to function as a cohesive state (i.e. collapse) rather than charging into mine fields.

Remember, the Coalition in 1990 took its time before launching the ground war.  I don't see any reason to think NATO wouldn't do this in any scenario of going up against Russia.

Steve

 

[dan/california]

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Would NATO suffer more casualties than it thinks it would?  I don't know any more.  I used to think "yes", but now I don't know.  If it had to fight on the ground through Russian defenses I'd say YES definitely, however given what NATO has witnessed this summer I think they would opt for wiping out Russia's ability to function as a cohesive state (i.e. collapse) rather than charging into mine fields.

Remember, the Coalition in 1990 took its time before launching the ground war.  I don't see any reason to think NATO wouldn't do this in any scenario of going up against Russia.

Steve

If Nato really committed there would not be a single Russian vehicle moving on the land bridge. Give the Mobiks a month to freeze properly, and I think things would look very different. 

 

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Vet 0369 said:

All officers, whether Regular or Reserve, basically enter the service with the same amount of training. The vast majority of officers were officers simply because they were college grads. They all received the same amount of basic Officer training, and then got their REAL training and experience in the field.

This was a lesson the US learned in the First Gulf War when National Guard and Reserve units were mobilized in quantity for the first time since the all volunteer force was established.  Units were quickly shipped to Saudi Arabia and as quickly found not to be ready for combat.  Part of it was their equipment, but much of it was the regular Army felt the units needed a lot more training.  This is one reason the Desert Shield phase lasted as long as it did.

I found this very interesting looking paper, published by the US Army, that examines the flaws in the US' reliance upon reserve units:

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA326580.pdf

Steve

[poesel]

[Haiduk]

Russian FAB-1500 on Krynky

Some our around-military accounts say we can reduce Russian gliding bomb strikes by Patriot ambushes, like it were so far at least three times, but our generals are too afraid to be responsible for hypothetic loss of value western AD system, so "let's they bomb, enlistment centers then will send new personnel"

 

[The_Capt]

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Now, what if NATO got involved in the war right now?  Russia would be done even quicker because much of the advantages Russia enjoyed at the beginning of this war have been ebbed away.

Would NATO suffer more casualties than it thinks it would?  I don't know any more.  I used to think "yes", but now I don't know.  If it had to fight on the ground through Russian defenses I'd say YES definitely, however given what NATO has witnessed this summer I think they would opt for wiping out Russia's ability to function as a cohesive state (i.e. collapse) rather than charging into mine fields.

Remember, the Coalition in 1990 took its time before launching the ground war.  I don't see any reason to think NATO wouldn't do this in any scenario of going up against Russia.

If NATO got involved in this war now I am not so sure we would cut through the RA to be honest.  First off we would not be doing strategic strikes into Russia as we would be bounded by escalation constraints as well.  Second we cannot have this discussion and leave China out of it.  If we threw in on Ukraine, China would be heavily motivated to support Russia more in order to act as strategic spoiler.  Russia sux, but China does not.  We cannot move NATO fast enough for China not to see this coming.

 So if we were fighting in the same box as Ukraine could we fix some things?

- Air superiority.  I have to be honest I really am not sure.  Above 2000 feet we could do SEAD and kill most of those IADS.  But if China started pushing a lot of MANPADs we would be challenged and face stiff loses.  My bet is Russia would go for denial, denial and denial.  We could lose hundreds of very expensive aircraft trying to do SEAD the old fashion way.  All the while long range loitering munitions would be swarming our own airfields along with Deep Strike.

- ISR.  If China supplied C4ISR support, we would also be in trouble.  We can not blind space or operational ISR outside of Ukraine.  And tactical has gone UAS.  We pretty much have all the ISR pointed at this problem so any improvement on the Russian side would be a very bad thing.

- PGM.  Our stuff still blows up.  Chinese HJ-12s are an absolute knock-off of the Javelin.  Not sure how you feel about an ATGM team that can hit at 5 kms, fire and forget, with high accuracy…but it concerns me.  China also has equivalent HIMARs systems etc so get ready for our big fat logistics back end to get mauled.  Hell Russia could hit us from inside Russia itself.

- Unmanned.  China has zero qualms about pushing Russia fully autonomous unmanned systems.  They likely lead the planet on this technology, along with UGVs.  The RA would be getting smart and distributed very quickly.  We have no answer for fully autonomous unmanned systems.  EW does not work. SHORAD does not work.  UGV is a nightmare in the wings.

- Minefields still work.  We would still need to fight through roughly 20km of extremely heavily mined belts facing all that above.  I am betting we would see loses much like the UA did last Jun.  Except entire Bns stopped cold.  

- Manpower.  To your point- NATO direct involvement would take Russian force mobilization off the leash.  We would be facing potentially millions of troops - even hastily trained and ad hoc equipped with left over Russian, Iranian and Chinese equipment.  

- Logistics.  Our logistics is ridiculously large and frankly we have not practiced conventional wartime logistics in about 30 years.  We cut them back and depleted them.  Hell back in 06 Iraqi insurgency managed to cut off operational LOCs coming up from Kuwait…and they did not have a fraction of what we would be facing.

- Willpower.  We would balk at the first real military disaster.  If we lost 1000 in a day we would go into collective political shock.  If the RA could drag this out the public would turn on the whole thing.  How many NATO nations are willing to lose thousands of people over Ukraine?  Russias willingness to take losses is already well established.  I do not think we would take 100k in a year…nor could we sustain it.

So my guess is that we would have to shoot for a quick war but be unable to deliver.  This is not Iraq.  We cannot bomb Russian strategic targets with impunity.  If we went down that road then this is a “would we win WW3 discussion” not a Ukrainian discussion.  China would be heavily invested in dragging this thing out and so would Russia.  Our combined arms and equipment is not somehow immune to being lost…we have seen plenty evidence of this.  

And frankly our doctrine and training is lagging.  We do not have unmannned doctrine and training for what we are seeing in this war.  We would try traditional mech manoeuvre after establishing what we think is air superiority and wind up bogged down by pretty much what ate the RA at the beginning of the war.  Only way this goes differently is if the RA is dumb enough to try to fight the same way we would.

In my estimation, if we had to fight this war with similar constraints as Ukraine we might actually do worse because they have higher experience levels than we do.  We have equipment but not as much as we think.  The US is divide in spending money let alone spilling blood.  

Now if we want to talk about a non-nuclear WW3 scenario things get more interesting.  We likely would not even bother with Ukraine and instead attack along several other fronts/theatres.  Here we could strike deeply into Russia and we might see a more traditional but extremely costly outcome.  Then of course “we broke it we bought it” and we would be trying to manage a broken Russia with China watching and waiting to help us mess that up.

[LongLeftFlank]

So as the Chairman exhorts us to 'seek truth from facts', 'learn from the peasants' and 'conduct rigorous self-criticism', I visited a  pro-Russian feed to see what they are showing lately in the way of hohol doom and destruction that has been hidden from we bourgeois dupes and stooges in our echo chamber.

Hilarity ensues (for some definition of hilarity).  Yes, there's also some destroyed equipment but no context (where, when, how much).

1. "Training of Belarusian military personnel with soldiers of the Wagner Group continues."

2. Wot, behind the rabbit?

3. Dumb alligator tricks

4. OK, some beardos talking and walking is the righteous fist of Allah or sumfink?

*****

Zoka got outed and his site was repurposed, but Geroman is still on the job. The footage is not without interest, but hardly supports the claims in the caption (that's true of UKR footage of course at times).

Here too.

Not sure I've ever seen a UA soldier in a steel pot with no helmet liner though, so not clear these hapless hohols aren't Russian or separs.

5.  OK, this does seem to be a UA road column being shot to hell but jump cuts make it hard to tell what's going on. The drone strikes clip is actually more interesting to me:  I know it's very much 'anecdata' and this is a built up (rubbled) battlespace, but do the Rooskies lean toward using SPV drones and Lancets in clusters as ersatz mortars, as opposed to the more curated strikes we see posted by the UA? (no firm conclusion reachable here, just something to look for)

Anyway, for what it's worth.

 

Edited December 18, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[riptides]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

.....

The combined arms team is broken and no one knows how to fix it.

In the current landscape and positioning of forces in Ukraine, yes,

But if one gets behind the landscape, I'd say not.

 

[LongLeftFlank]

1 hour ago, Haiduk said:

Here is just small part of combined work FPV, dron dropping and artilelry - dozens of Russian bodies left near the fence of coke plant. This location already known as "Fence of the Death". Without drones, Russian already would be fight inside coke plant.

 

Interestingly, I think I posted some footage a week or so ago of UA sappers busily (cover your ears, @The_Capt) mining the gaps in this very fence.  Looks like it paid off.

[OBJ]

1 hour ago, Tux said:

As much as I love a good airborne solution I really struggle with how this could be effective.  Just a few starters-for-ten:

1. Presumably you either fly low enough that incoming artillery is arguably more effective against you than if you were on the ground or you fly high enough that you can be shot at by anything bigger than a light machine gun from kms away.  Any higher than that and maybe you start struggling to find enough volunteers...
2. You generate a godawful cacophone throughout the assault, even compared to a ground-based one.  Everyone within a few kms knows you are airborne and roughly where.
3. The assault would not be as fast as you might hope due to the need to find a suitable landing spot and gently slow to a hover before landing.  Otherwise expect a lot of broken ankles and drowned jet-troops.
4. How difficult would it be to mass-produce mines with a light-sensor on top?  If a shadow passes over the mine one charge launches it into the air and then another wipes out nearby jet-troops.  S-mine+.

 

Yes, absolutely this.  This has been bugging me for ages, too.  Even insofar as this is just a topical discussion on a computer game forum I hope we can try to identify lessons which are Ukraine-specific vs those that should be applied more widely.

How about these?

1. The curious state of airpower: both sides have significant capability but not enough with respect to enemy AD to establish air supremacy and proper subsequent air support campaigns.
2. Rasputitsa and its characteristic division of the year into viable/non-viable campaign seasons (and the concurrent time for rest and reorganisation that all sides can rely on).
3. The enemy.  Russia's combination of materiel quantity, technological competence (if not outright excellence in certain domains) and sheer, fatalistic bloody-mindedness in the face of the traumas of combat is probably unique.  They will lash out at you with high-potential combat power everywhere, all the time.

Thanks @Tux

This clearly will take a lot of collaborative high caliber intellect, way out of my league, still you gotta luv a 'Good Airborne Solution'

Maybe most of the penetration force is not manned, but drones, semi-autonomous and networked with small groups of humans, broken down into task oriented sub-groups within the friendly 'Death Swarm,' all flying at whatever drone NOE altitude is. After pre-attack 'shaping the battle field' operations, at the leading edge of the swarm are drone/human groups tasked with recon, EW, and decoy ops, followed and supported by drone/human hunter killer groups, tasked to take out enemy drones, enemy ADA, enemy EW and C4, enemy artillery, enemy infantry bunkers. The 'Death Swarm' carries it's own version of 5 days supply, whatever that is, human rations, drone battery packs, drone munitions, and whatever etc is.

The Death Swarm establishes and maintains 'drone supremacy' over the breakthrough breadth and depth, and then does what? Do more drone/human forces go on to exploit the breakthrough supported by yet more drone/human support drones, dropping off drone/human units along the way to hold the shoulders?

Or is the force a combination of drone and more traditional ground forces, drone/human units creating the defense suppression/breach conditions for more traditional ground forces to clear lanes, exploit and support? Is it possible tying a flying drone/human assault force to a ground clearing and exploitation force is the equivalent of determining the proper use of the tank is in infantry support.

Separately, 'Mines with a light-sensor on top' 'S-mine+,' that, is a scary idea, like everything that's cheap, simple, reliable and deadly.

 

Ukraine-specific, like your list, think we need to avoid corollary of assuming because there were western and eastern fronts in WWI the experience was the same on both.

[Fenris]

1 hour ago, Haiduk said:

Here is just small part of combined work FPV, dron dropping and artilelry - dozens of Russian bodies left near the fence of coke plant. This location already known as "Fence of the Death". Without drones, Russian already would be fight inside coke plant.

 

 

Looks like UKR should build more fences

[LongLeftFlank]

32 minutes ago, OBJ said:

This clearly will take a lot of collaborative high caliber intellect, way out of my league, still you gotta luv a 'Good Airborne Solution'

Sorry, gotta meme you here, it's my way. Besides, Micronauts!

[Tux]

9 minutes ago, OBJ said:

Thanks @Tux

This clearly will take a lot of collaborative high caliber intellect, way out of my league, still you gotta luv a 'Good Airborne Solution'

Maybe most of the penetration force is not manned, but drones, semi-autonomous and networked with small groups of humans, broken down into task oriented sub-groups within the friendly 'Death Swarm,' all flying at whatever drone NOE altitude is. After pre-attack 'shaping the battle field' operations, at the leading edge of the swarm are drone/human groups tasked with recon, EW, and decoy ops, followed and supported by drone/human hunter killer groups, tasked to take out enemy drones, enemy ADA, enemy EW and C4, enemy artillery, enemy infantry bunkers. The 'Death Swarm' carries it's own version of 5 days supply, whatever that is, human rations, drone battery packs, drone munitions, and whatever etc is.

This really isn't my area of expertise either but, for what it's worth, I think you're describing a decent 'snowglobe' situation in which your layered defences against the enemy's drones and C4ISR (with attendant PGM-lobbers) move with the attack.  I don't think it's necessarily attack-specific, either.  Most of what you describe will need to be permanently attached to any formation (combat or support) which wants to survive when moving within 50km of the front line.

 

9 minutes ago, OBJ said:

The Death Swarm establishes and maintains 'drone supremacy' over the breakthrough breadth and depth, and then does what? Do more drone/human forces go on to exploit the breakthrough supported by yet more drone/human support drones, dropping off drone/human units along the way to hold the shoulders?

Or is the force a combination of drone and more traditional ground forces, drone/human units creating the defense suppression/breach conditions for more traditional ground forces to clear lanes, exploit and support? Is it possible tying a flying drone/human assault force to a ground clearing and exploitation force is the equivalent of determining the proper use of the tank is in infantry support.

Even if you manage to establish and maintain your localised protective dome well enough that you can break into the enemy's lines I think you're asking for trouble if you then try and shove 'traditional' forces through the gap.  The one thing you won't be able to do is hide the fact that your attack is taking place and where, so the enemy's reserves are on the way almost as soon as you start.  To my mind 'bite and hold' could be a solution:  take as much territory as you can in 1-2 days, while your dome is intact, then dig like maniacs so that you can adequately protect yourself once the enemy inevitably manages to burn through the dome and gets all up-in-the-grill of whatever it finds inside.

If you actually manage to break through the enemy lines, that might be where semi-/autonomous UGVs really show their worth.  Unleash hundreds of the little scalliwags to basically run outwards and establish as wide a perimeter as possible to the salient you just created.  Some of them can be 'mines with legs', some can be remote listening posts, some can carry ATGMs or massive explosive payloads and cause as much hunter-killer chaos as possible before they are located and neutralised.  Should buy you enough time to get settled in for the counterattack, at least...

Or design and field an Anti-Drone Drone good and numerous enough to maintain drone supremacy for a few months and, you know, just take your time.

Flying:  If you can create a good enough bubble to protect jet-troops I think you might be better off just putting them in a helicopter.

[Kraft]

 

 

[danfrodo]

7 minutes ago, Kraft said:

 

 

Disheartening.  Can UKR buy chinese drones?  With EU/US money?  I suspect will go to the highest bidder.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Anyway, for what it's worth.

Thanks for that!  Some of those are a decided improvement over smashing bricks on heads or moving a goat around (still one of my favorite TikTok Warrior videos!), but not much.  The combat ones were, as you pointed out, inconclusive.  They are similar to some of the least useful Ukrainian videos.  Which of course makes me wonder if that's the best they have what's the worst?  In one of them they had video footage with a Ukrainian flag water mark, so obviously some creative editing.

The most convincing, but still fairly pointless, was what appeared to be a wiped out Ukrainian squad.  No context and unclear if any of the jump cuts were related.

I mean, we know damned well that Ukraine is taking casualties and Russian FPV drones are a menace, so I'm still puzzled why even a random visit to a pro-Russian site isn't loaded with videos on par with what Ukraine's average random pro-sites show.  Are the Russinas so used to lying that they can't tell the truth even when it is favorable?

BTW, was I the only one to roll his eyes when seeing Ukrainian soldiers defending their home turf from a foreign invader referred to as "militants"?

Steve

[OBJ]

3 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Sorry, gotta meme you here, it's my way. Besides, Micronauts!

 

Wow, Stan Lee,

Super wow LLF,

and... Micronauts? oooooh, now I get it , Sorry, took me a while

Edited December 19, 2023 by OBJ

[Bulletpoint]

2 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Interestingly, I think I posted some footage a week or so ago of UA sappers busily (cover your ears, @The_Capt) mining the gaps in this very fence.  Looks like it paid off.

I've been trying to find this post by searching back a week ago, but didn't manage to find it.. would be interested if you could post it again please?

Or just throw it in my mailbox not to repeat stuff on this thread. Thanks