How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Aragorn2002]

1 minute ago, Kraft said:

No, the page quoted a HUR official, who confirmed the russian news.

Theres also a video with police on scene floating around. Suffice to say russian agents still have a large reach

 

No doubt about that. Why they didn't protect the pilot better is a mystery to me. 

[Haiduk]

3 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

No doubt about that. Why they didn't protect the pilot better is a mystery to me. 

It was his choice to live in Spain. He took own former girl with him. Probably through her Russians could track him. But it can be also GUR special operation with fake death, after which this guy will dissappear like Kuzminov and will be completely other person with new face, passport and life story

Edited February 19 by Haiduk

[Butschi]

1 hour ago, Grigb said:

First of all, it does not work like this.

You made a claim and were asked to back it up. How else should it work?

 

1 hour ago, Grigb said:

Second, we have two solid facts - the most important for Putin pipe was not blowen. And the same pipe is actually in fully working condition. 

Nobody denied that the pipe wasn't blown as is still intact. Solid facts, as you say. Your conclusion was what was challenged.

1 hour ago, Grigb said:

So, let me be clear - I do have solid facts for my assessment while you both do not.

But we don't have to. Sorry, but that is the established way of debating and gaining knowledge. The one who makes a claim has to back it up. Not the one who challenges the claim. You can make up your own rules but then please don't expect to be taken seriously.

While your facts are solid, they are not conclusive for the claim you make. For once, it is not Putins pipeline but a Russian-German joint venture.  I am not a conspiracy theorists but my government profited at least as much from the blown pipeline as Russia. In fact Russia didn't really profit much at all. The situation before was much more in their favor because Russia was able to blacknail Germany with gas deliveries and thus divide our society. Giving in to Russian blackmailing was an actually heatedly debated solution at that time.

Sure, I'd still count Russia among the prime suspects just for their demonstrated preference to do things others find unreasonable. I'd even say they are one of the likelier suspects. But they are not the only one and your facts are not suited to shorten that list.

1 hour ago, Grigb said:

Now, given your opinion (that you need something more credible) please provide me with screenshots when you ask the same thing from RU public (for example screenshots of you asking RU public to provide credible source for Putin statement that US did it).

That's a) whataboutism. We were discussing your claim, not someone else's. Your claim doesn't get any more credible by someone else making a claim he doesn't prove. And b) I don't discuss with the Russian public in general, I discuss with specific persons on this forum, so that's not a valid point. But if any Russian came here and made the claim the US were behind the blown pipelines I'd ask him to back up his claim, too.

 

1 hour ago, Grigb said:

If you fail to provide them then I am forced to make an assessment that opinion is not based on your fair judgment but on your personal pro-RU bias.  

Call me pseudo intellectual, again, but that is yet another rhetoric method aimed at discrediting a person's opinion instead of actually arguing his points. You are constructing a false dilemma here: A position is either fair judgement or pro Russian bias. This is false because obviously there can be a lot in between and also outside of that spectrum (for instance I could just be biased towards my line of argumenatation instead of making a fair judgement and still come to the same conclusion). But this way you make it look like everyone who doesn't share your view must be on the Russian side. Which of course discredits the person without having to deal with their points.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

36 minutes ago, Jiggathebauce said:

Amazing how valid criticism from one person is a full on cancellation of your favorite general by the proletariat.  Here's a tissue, comrade.

Tissues are bourgeois inventions, comrade. Since the last 5-year plan all tissue and toilet paper factories have been retooled to make sandpaper. And better make a good stock of it while it lasts, comrade. Next year they are all switching to coarser grain.

PS. True story from actual experience of living under "real socialism". Two things they could never produce in sufficient numbers was toilet paper and rope for baling hay. 

[Haiduk]

The tail of today's shot down Su-35 in Azov sea near Rybalske village. 

Fighterbomber confirms and hints pilot is dead. His body was found in the sea. Other Rusian TGs also hinted he was found dead ("the pilot has found in the water faced down")

But he and other Russian milbloggers rejected the loss of Su-34, despite UKR Air Comamnd again showed Cospas-Sarsat info, where radiobeacon of ejected pilot has seen in 10 km NE from Mariupol.

 

And Russians again with stupid persistence claim Su-35 was shot down again by friendly fire, lile and Su-35 two days ago and A-50. For them is easily to believe (and assure others) that "khokhol villagers" can't shot down newest Ruissian aircraft and that Patriot also can't shoot down "best planes" in the world

[Grigb]

Back to war assessment.

Let's have a look at battle damage of RDK M113 from Avdiivka. The M113 got hit by 1-2 RU FPV drones.

• 00:50-00:56 damage to fuel tank from fragments
• 01:00-01:10 damage to engine compartment from fragments
• 01:10-01:20 damage to heater from fragments
• There are a lot of floor shots to show blood from the wounded they were transporting
• 01:20 other vehicle (again damage from fragments)
• M113 was able to return to base

Interesting, but the damage comes from fragments, not HEAT. It's possible that HEAT warheads aren't often used at that location or that the FPV drone trajectory isn't always optimal for HEAT, or it missed due to pure luck.

Conclusion

FPV damage is primarily caused by fragmentation and HEAT from 40mm grenades and RPG-7 type-rounds (in hindsight it is kind of obvious). The damage is moderate and may be considerably reduced by standard methods such as bar and ERA armor, as well as spall liners.

The most significant distinction between FPV and conventional rounds is that FPV may hit anywhere on the vehicle, whereas current militaries are primarily concerned with up armoring vehicles against standard Grenade and RPG trajectories.

Reasons for extreme effectiveness of UKR drones

If we look at RU AFVs there are three distinct groups:

• Highly flammable tanks and BMPs
• Low flammability yet weakly armored MT-LB
• Completely unarmored wheeled vehicles

The exceptional success of UKR drones is due to the inherent vulnerability of RU vehicles and the RU's virtually total lack of a mass uparmouring program.

Let's see agent Murz opinion

Quote

A small electronic warfare device. There is no RU mass small EW gadget to counter [UKR] FPV! [Sarcasm]

Do you know that the warheads of the UKR FPVs are the typical "carrots" [grenades] from the RPG-7, against which regular ERA protection on tanks, as well as correctly positioned and built Bar armor on BMP/MTLB and in vulnerable areas of tanks where an ERA cannot be installed, is effective?

So. Do we have tanks with empty ERA again? Like in Grozny? Like at Sanzharovska? Like at the beginning of SMO on many vehicles? LIKE EVERYWHERE [even now]? Let's kill all the ****ing tanks and tankers? [Sarcasm]

The problem is not the lack of small EW device. There is another, sorry, problem. Which runs a little deeper.

Other reason for FPV effectiveness

Unlike in low-intensity combat, once a vehicle is disabled, it is effectively gone due to arty fire. So, FPV drones just need to disable the vehicle, not to inflict major damage.

And the FPV drone does not even need to disable the vehicle; instead, it may damage the sights, external electronics, and unmanned turret. In low-intensity conflict, such damage is not critical; in this war, it is effective mission kill because there are many other weapons systems around.

What is the point of your top-of-the-line unmanned turret if drone with the cost of 400 bucks can destroy it quickly. 

New paradigm of AFV up armoring

Apart from other things (APS, AD, Drone EW) we need to change the paradigm of uparmouring.

1. As much of the vehicle's surface as feasible should be armored to survive a 40mm grenade
2. Engine must be protected even better than other compartments (withstand RPG-7)
3. External components, such as electronics, turrets, and weapons, should be resistant against 40mm grenades or have the ability to be moved inside the vehicle quickly.
4. Spall liners is a must. Crew members may benefit from a full-body flak suit. Previously, there was a possibility of receiving few RPG strikes during missions. Now you may be struck by dozens of FPVs. Each of them may do small damage, but fragments could eventually strike, for example, the driver leg, making the vehicle temporally immobilized and vulnerable to arty fire.

Wheeled light vehicles

Let's look at RU recommendation for wheeled and unarmored vehicles 

Quote

5. Move as quickly as possible driving the vehicle near the frontline. Engineering services should take steps to guarantee that vehicles can travel at top speeds. Patch up road holes. Cover them with crushed stone.

So, the speed of the vehicle increases survivability. That means steps must be taken to ensure that logistics and unarmored wheeled vehicles can travel at the highest possible speed. Roads need to be improved and fixed. Drivers need to be trained. Vehicles need to have better accident protection (due to obvious decrease of safety).

[Battlefront.com]

34 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

And Russians again with stupid persistence claim Su-35 was shot down again by friendly fire, lile and Su-35 two days ago and A-50. For them is easily to believe (and assure others) that "khokhol villagers" can't shot down newest Ruissian aircraft and that Patriot also can't shoot down "best planes" in the world

A few pages ago, when the Russian losses were first posted here, I responded that the Russians are sure to say it was friendly fire.  Russians are consistent

It just shows how psychologically backwards Russia is from the West.  In the West we rank our own incompetence as one of the worst things.  In fact, if we did have a friendly fire incident involving an aircraft we're more likely to blame it on a 10 year old with an RPG rather than admit we could be so dumb as to shoot down our own aircraft.  Russia?  Somehow they feel they are superior to someone else by being grossly incompetent.

Nutty

Steve

[Jiggathebauce]

55 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Tissues are bourgeois inventions, comrade. Since the last 5-year plan all tissue and toilet paper factories have been retooled to make sandpaper. And better make a good stock of it while it lasts, comrade. Next year they are all switching to coarser grain.

PS. True story from actual experience of living under "real socialism". Two things they could never produce in sufficient numbers was toilet paper and rope for baling hay. 

And now you've switched to full on red baiting because you have no answer to my criticisms of an American general. If you want to continue this conversation about who has access to goods and services, you're always welcome in my direct messages where you can talk till you're blue in the face about how nice it is to have consumer goods.made by people who will never have access to them. Now get on topic.

[danfrodo]

6 minutes ago, Grigb said:

So, the speed of the vehicle increases survivability. That means steps must be taken to ensure that logistics and unarmored wheeled vehicles can travel at the highest possible speed. Roads need to be improved and fixed. Drivers need to be trained. Vehicles need to have better accident protection (due to obvious decrease of safety).

I'm wondering how much speed matters if no matter what the vehicle is still slower than the drone?  What I am asking is how fast are the drones, once loaded w ordnance?  And how long can the drone follow (range at high speed)?  Vehicle moving fast might have to make turns & such that slow it down while the drone just keeps cruising along.....  Maybe vehicle can get into trees but drones just circle around and attack at 2m above ground.  

So can any IFV go fast enough?  Maybe some lighter vehicles can be fast enough?  

[Battlefront.com]

Can we drop the whole Patton thing?  It's not interesting or informative.

Steve

[danfrodo]

3 minutes ago, Jiggathebauce said:

And now you've switched to full on red baiting because you have no answer to my criticisms of an American general. If you want to continue this conversation about who has access to goods and services, you're always welcome in my direct messages where you can talk till you're blue in the face about how nice it is to have consumer goods.made by people who will never have access to them. Now get on topic.

Actually, I thought Maciej's post led me to remember an interesting point: one of the things Ukrainians are fighting for is to be a prosperous western-style economy.  Not that western economies don't have oligarch/trust/monopoly issues, but beats the heck out of RU style economy.

[Jiggathebauce]

4 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Actually, I thought Maciej's post led me to remember an interesting point: one of the things Ukrainians are fighting for is to be a prosperous western-style economy.  Not that western economies don't have oligarch/trust/monopoly issues, but beats the heck out of RU style economy.

Agreed. 

[kimbosbread]

5 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

What I am asking is how fast are the drones, once loaded w ordnance?

Lancet is 200-300km in a dive with its elegant missile-like proportions and weighs ~15kg. A regular old quadcopter can easily do 100+ kmh even with a bit of weight on it.

So basically, much faster than most wheeled or tracked vehicles on the current be-holed, be-trenched and be-shrapneled mess of a battlefield.

[danfrodo]

10 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Lancet is 200-300km in a dive with its elegant missile-like proportions and weighs ~15kg. A regular old quadcopter can easily do 100+ kmh even with a bit of weight on it.

So basically, much faster than most wheeled or tracked vehicles on the current be-holed, be-trenched and be-shrapneled mess of a battlefield.

Thanks for that.  So speed would only help if the vehicle could somehow get to safety quickly.  Where would be safe I have no idea as the drone could just follow wherever.

[dan/california]

New Perun, we can argue about this instead!

[Grigb]

52 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

I'm wondering how much speed matters if no matter what the vehicle is still slower than the drone?  What I am asking is how fast are the drones, once loaded w ordnance?  And how long can the drone follow (range at high speed)?  Vehicle moving fast might have to make turns & such that slow it down while the drone just keeps cruising along.....  Maybe vehicle can get into trees but drones just circle around and attack at 2m above ground.  

So can any IFV go fast enough?  Maybe some lighter vehicles can be fast enough?  

• From my limited observation 60-100 kmh helps to decrease the chance of hit
• There are unverified RU claims that with 100-120 kmh you can drive away from FPV 
• The second video  shows Avenger escaping from Lancet
• Keep in mind that piloting FPV is not easy - you need to compensate for example for the wind etc. Even tanks can benefit from speed, but I mostly see wheeled vehicles escaping attack. Here is quadracycle at full speed escapes the attack and we also can compare it with successful attack.
• RU claims that the current typical suicide FPV that operates at frontline has just 25 minutes (at longer range UKR use different noticeably slower drones).
• It does not mean that speed is 100% protection, but it does mean that speed helps. 

[EDIT] Another good video of RU drone that was too slow.

Edited February 19 by Grigb

[Grigb]

46 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Lancet is 200-300km in a dive with its elegant missile-like proportions and weighs ~15kg. A regular old quadcopter can easily do 100+ kmh even with a bit of weight on it.

So basically, much faster than most wheeled or tracked vehicles on the current be-holed, be-trenched and be-shrapneled mess of a battlefield.

However, we do have instances of wheeled vehicle escapes using high speed and good roads. 

[EDIT] A 200-300 kilometers in dive sounds nice until you see the Avenger driving away (top speed 89km/h). 100+ kmh also sounds good until you watch a quadcopter hitting ground behind pickup truck driving right on the battlefield.

Edited February 19 by Grigb

[Harmon Rabb]

2 hours ago, Haiduk said:

It was his choice to live in Spain. He took own former girl with him. Probably through her Russians could track him. But it can be also GUR special operation with fake death, after which this guy will dissappear like Kuzminov and will be completely other person with new face, passport and life story

While it is possible that a Ukrainian Eraser conducted this operation to fake his death and give him a new identity, I think chances are the Russian pilot is really dead.

It is in Ukraine's best interests to keep more RU pilots defecting, and if those potential Russian defectors think that the sunny West, is not safe from their former comrades in Russian intelligence (no it is not) they may not defect.

I imagine Ukraine already revived the machine he defected with as well as any intel he had, not sure GUR have much incentive to go through all this just to protect this one guy. Especially if it could deter other RU pilots from defecting in the future.

 

Edited February 19 by Harmon Rabb

[Grigb]

1 hour ago, Ales Dvorak said:

If we were in court room then you would need solid evidence.

We are not in the court room. And we are not in court procedure. 

 

1 hour ago, Ales Dvorak said:

 Still I can't see your solid facts, just your words.

Repeat after me the following statements:

1.  The most important for Putin pipe was not blowen
2. The same pipe is actually in fully working condition

Do you deny the existence of these two facts?

1 hour ago, Ales Dvorak said:

I never said USA did it

I never asked you who did it

 

 

1 hour ago, Ales Dvorak said:

so why I have provide you with screenshots of asking the same thing from RU public?

You declared you accept only solid evidence. Now to continue conversation with you I need solid evidence that you indeed accept only solid evidence. It is useless to have a conversation with a lying pro-Ru hypocrite

 

1 hour ago, Ales Dvorak said:

Don't know what exactly I have to provide to you,

You do know as the text is very clear - Screenshots when you ask the same thing from RU public (for example screenshots of you asking RU public to provide credible source for Putin statement that US did it).

 

1 hour ago, Ales Dvorak said:

but if this is your final conclusion so it be.

So, you do not make the same demands to RU public. Got it, thanks.

 

1 hour ago, Ales Dvorak said:

While we are at gas...

I am at aftermath of Nord Stream explosions that benefited RU and Putin himself (that surviving pipe is his pet project). Where you are is not relevant to that. 

[Harmon Rabb]

Sounds good.

[billbindc]

FPV dog fights are already a thing: 

 

[Ales Dvorak]

16 minutes ago, Grigb said:

It is useless to have a conversation with a lying pro-Ru hypocrite

Got it, thanks.

[Grigb]

2 minutes ago, Ales Dvorak said:

Got it, thanks.

As soon as I asked you whether you apply the same standards to RU public you ran away. 

[Ales Dvorak]

1 minute ago, Grigb said:

As soon as I asked you whether you apply the same standards to RU public you ran away. 

I think Butschi very good summarize your post. Read again.

[The_Capt]

13 minutes ago, billbindc said:

FPV dog fights are already a thing: 

 

It begins....