Fenris Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 Abrams sighting, although details are unclear. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 51 minutes ago, JonS said: The rest of the time it just gets lugged around as make-weight. Cost - As compared to what? Tanks and guns? If we are talking a war every 30 years (something that is appearing less likely with every month), I would argue those heavy metal parade square decorations are a lot more expensive to keep in motion than a bunch of cheap drones. I do not think guns, or tanks can really win the "hey we are more affordable" argument. Training - again, compared to what? I am not sure what the training requirement is for a good FPV operator but to my eyes it looks like XBox already has a head start. Gun crews and support to those gun crews is no small training bill. I am honestly not sure how they stack up against hundreds of FPV operators but I am also not thinking the heavy stuff is sitting on a hill on that one either. A sniper is too limited in scope and scale of effect. The basic amount of energy they can project is actually quite small, if highly precise. They are also limited by direct LOS. So this is more like "snipers who can fly their guns 10-20km behind the line and hit with the force of an ATGM". There is a tipping point of value trade-off somewhere in there. Effect - I suspect here you have a solid point. Until FPVs can scale to a point they can do everything artillery can do, we are very likely looking at combined mutually supporting systems. Trick will be to see who learns how to do this quicker and better. The only time we may see drones replacing guns - although they appear to be a solid job of denial right now - is when/if, they can be upscaled. Essentially made more autonomous, easier and more resilient and mass produced. I can see a future where a single human operator is flying an entire squadron of these things from a repeater and painting targets - all with fully autonomous backups. At the end of the day, any conventional military problem in a high intensity war needs a "boom" at a certain point in time and space. How that boom gets delivered is what all the effort and debate is over. If an FPV can deliver a boom better and more efficiently than guns...well nature will take its course. Same goes for any system and history shows this. Of course this is all before UGVs make a debut in large numbers. In the end, I suspect the overall aim will be to reduce the humans on the battlefield to as few as possible and still be able to deliver what human-based systems did. How long that will take or what it will look like is something we will just have to watch. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poesel Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 Could someone please explain what this Zelenskyy / Zalushny thing is all about? Is that only a political quarrel, and Zelenskyy is trying to get rid of a rival? Or is there some real concern that a general is trying to reach for political power? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimbosbread Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 2 hours ago, JonS said: Logistically, artillery ammunition is famously "heavy", but it is also very compact and simple. The rounds come packed in geometrically simple tubes, they stack really well, and are insensitive to heat, cold, dry, damp, and being bounced around and generally careless treatment. Drones appear to be light and simple and easy - hell, I can carry two in boxes under my arm, and get a dozen in my car! Well, sure, but how does that scale? When every rifle company is firing off 100 munition-drones per day, and every battalion is burning through a thousand ... where are you putting all the dunnage? Who is assembling them? How many trucks are running about in constant loops to bring them forward from Div HQ? Drones are also kinda fragile. That's partly why they are so comparatively cheap, but what is an acceptable dud-rate for drones? Apples to apples drones are way less “heavy”. The ammunition is simple, sure, but the rest of system is very very complex: Trained gunners, all the logistics to move ammunition (40kg a pop) and the gun to the front and tons of fuel. That’s incredibly expensive and involves many, many people. Question: If you have a choice between 20 drones, or one artillery shell (ie 40kg)… what would you choose? The range is not that different, especially if you can get your base station antenna up high (ie balloon, or relay drone). Also, major benefit for military in terms of medical casre: No TBIs and injuries due from noise and concussion, and no back injuries from carrying 40kg shells. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenris Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 Updated loses spreadsheet for Avdiivka (second tweet). Quite eye watering numbers if these are truly accurate. Like Oryx, the spreadsheet links to the evidence of each claim. Quote #Avdiivka offensive equipment loss numbers as of 02 February 2024. In summary: 608 RU losses vs. 46 UA losses Spreadsheet showing the losses in detail: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VIyACYHfnJi8cUMWjXAXDhS419l9IHcIhGJaK1RWMFQ/edit?usp=sharing 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artkin Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 4 minutes ago, Fenris said: Updated loses spreadsheet for Avdiivka (second tweet). Quite eye watering numbers if these are truly accurate. Like Oryx, the spreadsheet links to the evidence of each claim. God thats pretty much an entire MRD. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbindc Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 (edited) 1 hour ago, poesel said: Could someone please explain what this Zelenskyy / Zalushny thing is all about? Is that only a political quarrel, and Zelenskyy is trying to get rid of a rival? Or is there some real concern that a general is trying to reach for political power? There are several layers to it. In crude terms, it's that Zalushny has a different vision going forward for how to fight the war that includes, inter alia, very large mobilization and an emphasis on drone warfare. He also feels quite comfortable talking outside the chain of command and in public to attempt to make his vision of the war apply going forward. Zelensky has what could be described as a more political take on the war but really it seems like the biggest issue is that he believes that the civilian primacy over the Ukrainian commander should be complete. It should not be a competition, whatever tensions may exist within the relationship and Zaluzhny has to some degree made it one...even if with pretty good intentions. I tend to agree with Zalushny's assessment in military terms but I think in the long run Zelensky has the right of it. If Ukraine is really going to reject the "Eurasian" model Putin sells than it has to fully buy into elected, civilian control of the security services writ large. My 2 hryvnia. Edited February 5 by billbindc 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maciej Zwolinski Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 5 minutes ago, billbindc said: There are several layers to it. In crude terms, it's that Zalushny has a different vision going forward for how to fight the war that includes, inter alia, very large mobilization and an emphasis on drone warfare. He also feels quite comfortable talking outside the chain of command and in public to attempt to make his vision of the war apply going forward. Zelensky has what could be described as a more political take on the war but really it seems like the biggest issue is that he believes that the civilian primacy over the Ukrainian commander should be complete. It should not be a competition, whatever tensions may exist within the relationship and Zaluzhny has to some degree made it one...even if with pretty good intentions. I tend to agree with Zalushny's assessment in military terms but I think in the long run Zelensky has the right of it. If Ukraine is really going to reject the "Eurasian" model Putin sells than it has to fully buy into elected, civilian control of the security services writ large. My 2 hryvnia. I think this analysis overcomplicated. To me the conflict looks like more simple- just classic political jealousy on part of Zelenski and his trying to cut down a potentially more popular figure after he himself started loosing popularity. During the first phase of the war they worked very well together with Zaluzny directing the military and Zelenski taking care of morale on the homefront and in particular working the circuit of Western capitals bringing back pledges of support. Now Zaluzny continues to more or less deliver on his part (I do not think he is blamed much for the failure of the Summer offensive), while Zelenski has had no recent successes in his diplomatic efforts. He has also done some significant missteps, where he got into needless spats e.g. with the British. Zelenski is constantly conscious of his popularity or lack thereof. BTW I have not seen evidence of Ukrainian army displaying too much independence of civilian control, if anything shades of the reverse - Zelenski's govt micromanaging military objectivs for propaganda purposes, e.g. Bachmut's no retreat policy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinophile Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harmon Rabb Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 (edited) Fore! Edited February 5 by Harmon Rabb 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet 0369 Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 29 minutes ago, billbindc said: There are several layers to it. In crude terms, it's that Zalushny has a different vision going forward for how to fight the war that includes, inter alia, very large mobilization and an emphasis on drone warfare. He also feels quite comfortable talking outside the chain of command and in public to attempt to make his vision of the war apply going forward. Zelensky has what could be described as a more political take on the war but really it seems like the biggest issue is that he believes that the civilian primacy over the Ukrainian commander should be complete. It should not be a competition, whatever tensions may exist within the relationship and Zaluzhny has to some degree made it one...even if with pretty good intentions. I tend to agree with Zalushny's assessment in military terms but I think in the long run Zelensky has the right of it. If Ukraine is really going to reject the "Eurasian" model Putin sells than it has to fully buy into elected, civilian control of the security services writ large. My 2 hryvnia. I have to agree with Billdc 100%. For the most part, politians should set the limits, and then get the hell out of the way and let the military minds guide and control the battle. As I see it, most of the issues I saw during the Vietnam Conflict, a strictly political conflict, were caused by the politicians butting in and controlling the military. Before that, the most public incident was during the Korean Conflict and involved MacArthur publicly challenging Truman, and was removed from command because of it. The Zalushny sounds almost identical to MacArthur in that he is publicly challenging his Commander in Chief. I expect it will have the same result if he doesn’t back off. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenris Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 This just popped up. Haven't read the details yet. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 41 minutes ago, Kinophile said: It turns out wiper fluid is a very important item in a war zone if you are lucky enough to still have a windshield. 1 hour ago, kimbosbread said: Apples to apples drones are way less “heavy”. The ammunition is simple, sure, but the rest of system is very very complex: Trained gunners, all the logistics to move ammunition (40kg a pop) and the gun to the front and tons of fuel. That’s incredibly expensive and involves many, many people. Question: If you have a choice between 20 drones, or one artillery shell (ie 40kg)… what would you choose? The range is not that different, especially if you can get your base station antenna up high (ie balloon, or relay drone). Also, major benefit for military in terms of medical casre: No TBIs and injuries due from noise and concussion, and no back injuries from carrying 40kg shells. And drones are just better at moving targets, they are probably even better that really expensive gun launched PGMs most of the time, and cost only a tiny fraction. I grant that ability to simply suppress a whole tree line isn't nothing, but with the ever rising counter battery threat that is a lot of rounds to stand and fire. The_Capt also mentioned that FPV drones were better because they could be aimed at the most vulnerable spots. Given the number of FPV drones that seem to to do the last hundred yards/meters on prayer I am less than sure about this factor. And a slightly better autonomous drone that just fired an explosively formed projectile straight down at the center of mass as viewed from the top would seem to cover most of the bases. RPG warheads aren't used because they are perfect, merely because they are around. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbindc Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 1 hour ago, Maciej Zwolinski said: I think this analysis overcomplicated. To me the conflict looks like more simple- just classic political jealousy on part of Zelenski and his trying to cut down a potentially more popular figure after he himself started loosing popularity. During the first phase of the war they worked very well together with Zaluzny directing the military and Zelenski taking care of morale on the homefront and in particular working the circuit of Western capitals bringing back pledges of support. Now Zaluzny continues to more or less deliver on his part (I do not think he is blamed much for the failure of the Summer offensive), while Zelenski has had no recent successes in his diplomatic efforts. He has also done some significant missteps, where he got into needless spats e.g. with the British. Zelenski is constantly conscious of his popularity or lack thereof. BTW I have not seen evidence of Ukrainian army displaying too much independence of civilian control, if anything shades of the reverse - Zelenski's govt micromanaging military objectivs for propaganda purposes, e.g. Bachmut's no retreat policy. Zaluzhny actually admitted that he didn't deliver when in his Economist interview he called it his own personal mistake that he underestimated Russia's ability to regenerate force and resist the Ukrainian offensive this summer. With the fate of the nation at stake, I think it's pretty clearly Zelensky's role to decide if Zaluzhny should stay on the job and the latter making public statements about what should be done in opposition to the administration he serves isn't making that any easier. What politics there is *should* be in Zelensky's corner. Zaluzhny...like MacArthur as mentioned above...is inserting himself into that arena and will have only himself to blame if that gets him fired. Note: I say all of the above while liking and respecting Zaluzhny but generals don't get to call the shots in the kind of government I want to support. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 1 hour ago, Fenris said: This just popped up. Haven't read the details yet. My understanding is that this is a proposal that will be voted on by the full Senate this week. It's unclear if the votes are there to pass it. If it does pass it goes to the House where it's prospects are dim. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 7 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said: My understanding is that this is a proposal that will be voted on by the full Senate this week. It's unclear if the votes are there to pass it. If it does pass it goes to the House where it's prospects are dim. They literally only need ~3 Republicans to go all in on supporting this, and threaten to vacate the chair and vote in Jeffries. Not saying that will happen but if any Republicans do it I hereby promise to donate to their campaigns, and buy their books. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbindc Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 (edited) 47 minutes ago, dan/california said: They literally only need ~3 Republicans to go all in on supporting this, and threaten to vacate the chair and vote in Jeffries. Not saying that will happen but if any Republicans do it I hereby promise to donate to their campaigns, and buy their books. How it passes the Senate will matter. If it gets significantly over 60, the chances of a discharge petition forcing it the floor of the House go up. It's a rocky road but it very likely passes if it makes to a vote there. Edited February 5 by billbindc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cesmonkey Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 (edited) 2 hours ago, Fenris said: This just popped up. Haven't read the details yet. The bill is 370 pages, if you want to read it: https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/emergency_national_security_supplemental_bill_text.pdf From page 62 on, it's about changes to the border and immigration policy. Edited February 5 by cesmonkey 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 2 hours ago, billbindc said: How it passes the Senate will matter. If it gets significantly over 60, the chances of a discharge petition forcing it the floor of the House go up. It's a rocky road but it very likely passes if it makes to a vote there. GOP House leadership has stated it is DOA in strong enough language that I don't see how they can back down from a NO position. A discharge petition seems to be the only hope of it getting a vote in the House, and I think you're right that won't happen if the Senate doesn't strongly support it. It would also spell the end of Speaker Johnson, I think, if it happened and was successful. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 7 hours ago, The_Capt said: Cost - As compared to what? As I said: compared to COTS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisl Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 I finally checked out the propaganda page for the Apple Vision pro AR system, the next generation in True Borg SpottingTM. At least as advertised it's the AR system I've been wanting for a while - effectively a 4π (or something like that) steradian workspace with reality visible through the goggles. And it's networked with the ability to create a 3D VR world of stuff. Now imagine instead of powerpoint and MSword expanded into unnecessary 3D, it's got a whole squad or platoon networked to each other and some next level of command, with the 3D world for each person constructed from what everybody else is seeing, plus GIS data and realtime ISR from other sources, with each wearer properly located and oriented within the AR world. I need to get my eyeballs into one and see how well the reality matches the propaganda. Given that it's apple, it probably looks and works pretty well now, but won't be really useful until they hit v3.0, but 3.0 will be really good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 This is the only must pass bill this year, aside from the actual budget. I would even forgive the Dems for protecting Johnson until November if it got this thru. It isn't like anything else more significant than naming a post office is going to pass regardless. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said: GOP House leadership has stated it is DOA in strong enough language that I don't see how they can back down from a NO position. A discharge petition seems to be the only hope of it getting a vote in the House, and I think you're right that won't happen if the Senate doesn't strongly support it. It would also spell the end of Speaker Johnson, I think, if it happened and was successful. Steve 1 minute ago, chrisl said: I finally checked out the propaganda page for the Apple Vision pro AR system, the next generation in True Borg SpottingTM. At least as advertised it's the AR system I've been wanting for a while - effectively a 4π (or something like that) steradian workspace with reality visible through the goggles. And it's networked with the ability to create a 3D VR world of stuff. Now imagine instead of powerpoint and MSword expanded into unnecessary 3D, it's got a whole squad or platoon networked to each other and some next level of command, with the 3D world for each person constructed from what everybody else is seeing, plus GIS data and realtime ISR from other sources, with each wearer properly located and oriented within the AR world. I need to get my eyeballs into one and see how well the reality matches the propaganda. Given that it's apple, it probably looks and works pretty well now, but won't be really useful until they hit v3.0, but 3.0 will be really good. Given the cost, the Pentagon would be the perfect customer. Apple might want to quietly create a defense subsidiary. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 (edited) 9 hours ago, The_Capt said: In the end, I suspect the overall aim will be to reduce the humans on the battlefield to as few as possible and still be able to deliver what human-based systems did. How long that will take or what it will look like is something we will just have to watch. Meanwhile, COIN/HADR/lower-intensity-stuff is going to remain human-centric and require lots and lots of solders, not 'bots. It's going to be quite the trick to square that circle. Edited February 5 by JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 (edited) 8 hours ago, kimbosbread said: Question: If you have a choice between 20 drones, or one artillery shell (ie 40kg)… what would you choose? The range is not that different, especially if you can get your base station antenna up high (ie balloon, or relay drone). It depends. Speed and weight of response from the guns remains superior, so if I find myself in the **** I'd want the guns since they're available within minutes, regardless of our spatial relationship to each other. If I'm just dicking around inflicting some attrition, and time or co-ordinated maneuver aren't important, then gimme drones. Edited February 5 by JonS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.