How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, holoween said:

Thats because HEAT doesnt have the required effect against MBTs and is significantly less accurate then APFSDS.

Except when it is strapped onto an FPV.  The it appears to do the job so well that Russian tanks need to try to be turtles.

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, photon said:

I'd be really curious what fraction of tank kills in Ukraine are caused by what. Has that started emerging yet? It seems like tank-on-tank fights are very rare? And often at absolutely suicidal ranges where well thrown rocks and sticks would penetrate armor?

I strongly suspect - even thought it is still quoted as a mantra - that this war is demonstrating that the best thing to kill a tank is not  another tank.  It would appear that artillery, ATGMs and FPVs are winning that particular argument quite well on their own.

[photon]

1 minute ago, The_Capt said:

I strongly suspect - even thought it is still quoted as a mantra - that this war is demonstrating that the best thing to kill a tank is not  another tank.  It would appear that artillery, ATGMs and FPVs are winning that particular argument quite well on their own.

This seems true to me as well, and it's what I'm trying to make sense of with my time-energy curve musings.

[holoween]

5 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Except when it is strapped onto an FPV.  The it appears to do the job so well that Russian tanks need to try to be turtles.

Id say a Nlos ATGM like spike does it even better (impossible to jam, far more reliable effects) but yea If you can avoid the front armour of a tank HEAT is great.

2 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I strongly suspect - even thought it is still quoted as a mantra - that this war is demonstrating that the best thing to kill a tank is not  another tank.  It would appear that artillery, ATGMs and FPVs are winning that particular argument quite well on their own.

Another tank has never been the best thing to kill another tank since their invention. at least if looked at from what actually killed tanks. Artillery, mines, Infantry with anti tank guns later atgms and hanndheld at have always been the primary killers.

[chrisl]

5 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I strongly suspect - even thought it is still quoted as a mantra - that this war is demonstrating that the best thing to kill a tank is not  another tank.  It would appear that artillery, ATGMs and FPVs are winning that particular argument quite well on their own.

And those are all effective now vs 50 (or even 30) years ago because of precision targeting combined with maneuverability after launch.  Two of them (artillery and FPVs) are BVR, and we'll probably start seeing BVR tank-on-tank using drones to provide the direction shortly over the horizon, like Apache Longbows, and similar with ATGMs, limited by how much propellant it's reasonable to make infantry haul around on their backs.

[Tux]

30 minutes ago, photon said:

Really appreciate your comments. So, here I'm thinking about HEAT and APFSDS rounds. Their time-energy curves look really different.

For APFSDS, the object that delivers the effect is the arrow, it receives all its kinetic energy as it leave the barrel. It gradually loses energy in flight - your note that much of that energy is waste energy is right on - until it transfers the kinetic energy to the armor of whatever you're shooting at.

Compare that to HEAT. the object that delivers the effect is the copper liner of the shell that's (at the last possible moment) formed into a penetrator. At firing, the shell can have much less kinetic energy because it's carrying with it a reserve of chemical energy that, at the last second, gets converted into kinetic energy in forming the penetrator.

So the energy for the same(ish) effect is distributed differently along the energy-time curve, and for the HEAT shell, much of the energy is provided to the actual penetrator when it is literally touching the target. Because of that, as you rightly note, you have much less waste energy, so less signature. And it's more controllable, so you can use fins and whatnot to steer it in the terminal phase (like the modern Javelin).

Does that make sense? I might need to draw some of what I mean.

I follow but I think there might be too many variables in play, at the moment.

Does your idea assume constant energy applied at the point of impact by two projectiles with different e-t curves or does it assume a constant effect applied to the target?

Do you want to keep the energy imparted to the projectile in order to get it to the target constant and just play with the shape of the e-t curve (launch signature vs. changing trajectory vs. "reserving energy for effect", etc.)?  Or do you want to minimise the energy absolutely (i.e. reduce the integral of the e-t curve)?

[The_Capt]

6 minutes ago, holoween said:

Another tank has never been the best thing to kill another tank since their invention. at least if looked at from what actually killed tanks. Artillery, mines, Infantry with anti tank guns later atgms and hanndheld at have always been the primary killers.

The why do we still hear this mantra coming out of western militaries today?  We had a MGen declare this exact statement at the opening of an Operational Symposium last month.  I have heard this mantra as the primary reason to have tanks for years now.

I agree entirely that history - and this war in particular - clearly demonstrate that 100 years of worrying about tanks has created a world where tanks are being hunted into extinction by a multitude of systems.  I also think we have a cultural block we cannot get past.

[Tux]

49 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I think we still do because of the slippery concept of effects.  The primary purpose of employing weapons systems is not to destroy or damage - the main purpose is to deliver an effect.  The effect of a naval gun is the threat of damage more than the damage itself.  This can shape the battlespace by forcing an opponent to manoeuvre or avoid certain conditions.

The reason for all that volume of fires was more than simply to kill other ships.  It was to get them to do what we wanted to do.  So the employment of all this energy is to create effects options spaces, which I suspect may be much more complicated than energy-time.

For example in your dive bomber example, the dive bomber has both fewer and greater effects options depending on when and where that dive occurs.  In the dive, they have very limited targeting effects flexibility coming in at those speeds, less after weapons release.  But before final attack the very presence of dive bombers creates an effect - ships must be looking up, AD manned and ready, and at speed to avoid.  Add sirens and one can get a psychological effect.

These options are less about the energy over time being applied, they are about the potential energy being applied.  The potential energy of those bombers is higher earlier, which creates options spaces.  Once committed, those option spaces appear to shrink.   

It's confused me for a long time that combatants don't focus on applying pyschological effects more often, at least on the battlefield.  I can kind of understand why western forces might shun the idea (good luck being seen as 'the good guys' if you try some of this stuff) but, for the sake of some extra weight, why don't Russian drones and missiles emit an inhuman screaming noise (for example) as they approach their target?  Especially those being used for terror attacks on civilian targets.

Ju-87s were militarily next-to-useless but their psychological impact on the enemy was out of all proportion to the actual threat they posed, almost entirely due to the sirens that sounded as the early models attacked.

V1s were militarily next-to-useless but people feared them far more than they needed to because you could hear them coming and you could hear when the motor stopped.  That was what people feared.

Edited April 9 by Tux
minor re-wording

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, Tux said:

It's confused me for a long time that other examples of psychological warfare aren't more prevalent, at least on the battlefield.  I can kind of understand why western forces might shun the idea (good luck being seen as 'the good guys' if you try some of this stuff) but, for the sake of some extra weight, why don't Russian drones and missiles emit an inhuman screaming noise as they approach their target?  Especially those being used for terror attacks on civilian targets.

Ju-87s were militarily next-to-useless but their psychological impact on the enemy was out of all proportion to the actual threat they posed, almost entirely due to the sirens that sounded as the early models attacked.

V1s were militarily next-to-useless but people feared them far more than they needed to because you could hear them coming and you could hear when the motor stopped.  That was what people feared.

I think we have gotten far too comfortable with our “superiorities” over the last 30 years.  To the point they stopped being a factor and simply became basic assumptions. Cam-paint for example.  When I first joined up we were always wearing cam paint in the field because we trained to both hunt and be hunted. Then we got rid of cam paint and frankly I only just saw it for the first time in a long time in training ex pics in Latvia.

We assumed levels of superiority that are unstable.  We cannot always have air or firepower superiority.  If we believe that we always will, then why even bother with psychological operations? Or we box up psychological operations into “hearts and minds” soft and fuzzy stuff that does not jive very well with killing people. This essentially alienates psychological to a weird niche when before, as you note, it was all over the place.  I think it is on a long list of things we need to re-learn as we head into far more competitive warfare environs - right along with capacity and attrition.

[Tux]

24 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The why do we still hear this mantra coming out of western militaries today?  We had a MGen declare this exact statement at the opening of an Operational Symposium last month.  I have heard this mantra as the primary reason to have tanks for years now.

I agree entirely that history - and this war in particular - clearly demonstrate that 100 years of worrying about tanks has created a world where tanks are being hunted into extinction by a multitude of systems.  I also think we have a cultural block we cannot get past.

Cultural block, 100%.  Once a weapon system has achieved such an exaggerated cultural profile the system itself almost becomes a psychological heuristic towards achieving the effects associated with its success.  As far as I can see it gets even worse once people start assuming they want to apply certain effects because that's what their favourite weapon system can do, because then you've blinded yourself to the possibility of the system's obsolescence.

It takes time and energy to occasionally reconsider what effects you want to apply and then work backwards to establish the best way to actually achieve that.  It always blows people's minds when you do it well, though.

I think what photon is admirably trying to do is observe the new, successful weapon systems in Ukraine and, instead of just deciding that "dronez rule every1 must has dronez!", extract the secret sauce of their success in more general, physical terms.

Unfortunately I (so far) think that the e-t profile and/or integral of same is a red herring; I think it's an emergent property of weapon systems that are able to lean into precision vs. brute force, rather than a deterministic property that can be used to decide the effectiveness of a weapon.

Edited April 9 by Tux

[Sgt Joch]

1 hour ago, photon said:

So, I'm genuinely curious why we still put naval guns on ships. 

Basically, because they are still situations where a gun is useful, whether stopping enemy/hostile vessels, supporting ground troops, etc. where a missile would not work or would be overkill. 

Most modern warships, like U.S. or RN destroyers also only typically have 1x 4.5 or 5 inch gun as its main gun armament.

[Tux]

23 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I think we have gotten far too comfortable with our “superiorities” over the last 30 years.  To the point they stopped being a factor and simply became basic assumptions. Cam-paint for example.  When I first joined up we were always wearing cam paint in the field because we trained to both hunt and be hunted. Then we got rid of cam paint and frankly I only just saw it for the first time in a long time in training ex pics in Latvia.

We assumed levels of superiority that are unstable.  We cannot always have air or firepower superiority.  If we believe that we always will, then why even bother with psychological operations? Or we box up psychological operations into “hearts and minds” soft and fuzzy stuff that does not jive very well with killing people. This essentially alienates psychological to a weird niche when before, as you note, it was all over the place.  I think it is on a long list of things we need to re-learn as we head into far more competitive warfare environs - right along with capacity and attrition.

If we are trying to learn how to do war better, though, I don't think we can ignore the "soft and fuzzy" stuff at all.  You have been among the first to remind people on this very thread that the world doesn't stop turning when the war ends and there are many very recent examples of it all going Pete Tong when people have forgotten that.  You have to have a lasting relationship with the people you just finished fighting.  How much harder is that going to be if you spent the whole war doing everything you could to terrorise them in ever more imaginitive ways; drilling right down into their amygdalas with screaming drones and running spider-mines to teach them an instinctive loathing of contact with your forces?

As I said, I'm really surprised that some people don't do this stuff more.  I would however advise caution if we were to think of doing it more.  At least I would if we ever want to be welcomed anywhere as "liberators", again.

[photon]

22 minutes ago, Tux said:

I think what photon is admirably trying to do is observe the new, successful weapon systems in Ukraine and, instead of just deciding that "dronez rule every1 must has dronez!", extract the secret sauce of their success in more general, physical terms.

Unfortunately I (so far) think that the e-t profile and/or integral of same is a red herring; I think it's an emergent property of weapon systems that are able to lean into precision vs. brute force, rather than a deterministic property that can be used to decide the effectiveness of a weapon.

Thanks for explaining what I'm trying to do better than I could!

What I'm trying to articulate (somewhat hamfistedly) is a tension between a hard requirement and a thing-you-appear-to-really-want in a weapon system. The hard requirement is that you must physically transport some physical object to your target to deliver whatever effect you're hoping to deliver. Mostly I'm thinking about kinetic effects, but maybe others too?

The thing you want is to delay, as long as possible, the collapse of the weapon's time and space option space. For a thing like a rifle, that space collapses as soon as the bullet leaves the barrel. For an FPV drone, that targeting time and options space remains uncollapsed until either your battery runs out or you hit something. Because the energy isn't put into the weapon system all up front, you can use that energy to retain the targeting option space for much longer as the weapon moves from launch to target. I think when we talk about "precision", we're mostly talking about delaying the collapse of the targeting choice space as long as possible (which requires the weapon to retain energy as long as possible).

[Kinophile]

57 minutes ago, Tux said:

Ju-87s were militarily next-to-useless but their psychological impact on the enemy was out of all proportion to the actual threat they posed, almost entirely due to the sirens that sounded as the early models attacked.

V1s were militarily next-to-useless but people feared them far more than they needed to because you could hear them coming and you could hear when the motor stopped.  That was what people feared.

There are two issues here. 

Ju-87 were not military next-to-useless. This is not me being contrary - its well established and researched that in the initial years of the war, and when the Luftwaffe in general was dominant, that the Stuka was highly effective and useful in its intended role - striking enemy strong points and armor formations. They were very effective in France, Greece and the 1st-2nd years of Barbarossa. As the war went on conditions changed and pilot attrition, increased enemy AA and better Allied planes, tactics and numbers all forced the Stuka out as a viable platform. Even so, the weaker skilled Soviet Airforce meant that Stukas were viable for longer than in the West.

This wasn't just an Axis issue - dive bombers in the Pacific gradually faded back as surface warships increased their AA weaponry, specialist AA Cruisers came into being, as the Japanese surface navy was attritted into a glorified armed coast guard and as better weapons came online.

Secondly, V1s (but really V2s later) were never intended as battlefield weapons, so we cant don't an apples-to-apples comparison here. They were a long range strategic terror weapon, intended to flatten London, terrorize the British into negotiations and thereby buy Hitler time. He personally held the idea that the UK might actually cease fire but AIUI I don't think anyone else shared that as a real possibility.

Just some nitpicky stuff to keep us accurate 

Edited April 9 by Kinophile

[photon]

10 minutes ago, Sgt Joch said:

Basically, because they are still situations where a gun is useful, whether stopping enemy/hostile vessels, supporting ground troops, etc. where a missile would not work or would be overkill. 

You could maybe talk me into the main gun being useful for shore bombardment, but good gravy - if you're firing at hostile vessels, how many things have gone badly wrong by that point? I'm really curious when was the last time a ship fired its main gun at another ship in anger?

[The_Capt]

16 minutes ago, photon said:

Thanks for explaining what I'm trying to do better than I could!

What I'm trying to articulate (somewhat hamfistedly) is a tension between a hard requirement and a thing-you-appear-to-really-want in a weapon system. The hard requirement is that you must physically transport some physical object to your target to deliver whatever effect you're hoping to deliver. Mostly I'm thinking about kinetic effects, but maybe others too?

The thing you want is to delay, as long as possible, the collapse of the weapon's time and space option space. For a thing like a rifle, that space collapses as soon as the bullet leaves the barrel. For an FPV drone, that targeting time and options space remains uncollapsed until either your battery runs out or you hit something. Because the energy isn't put into the weapon system all up front, you can use that energy to retain the targeting option space for much longer as the weapon moves from launch to target. I think when we talk about "precision", we're mostly talking about delaying the collapse of the targeting choice space as long as possible (which requires the weapon to retain energy as long as possible).

I think a key factor here is “smarts”.  So a bullet only has a brain attached to it right up until the point the trigger gets pulled.  An NLOS or FPV has a brain attached to it right up to detonating.  So one key factor of options appears to be smarts, and then the ability to translate smarts into energy delivery alterations as far forward in the process as possible.

So to your curve, one might need to add a “smarts” factor as it is a driving element of options as close as possible to a target.  Along with all the other energy aspects of the system.  A smarter system can keep options open even when the energy-curve is not flat…PGM artillery does this.

[Tux]

6 minutes ago, photon said:

The hard requirement is that you must physically transport some physical object to your target to deliver whatever effect you're hoping to deliver. Mostly I'm thinking about kinetic effects, but maybe others too?

Imo you're one order away from the truth, here: the hard requirement is the effect (including the type of effect).  You'll probably need to transport an object to the target to cause the effect but that's not the start.

7 minutes ago, photon said:

The thing you want is to delay, as long as possible, the collapse of the weapon's time and space option space. For a thing like a rifle, that space collapses as soon as the bullet leaves the barrel. For an FPV drone, that targeting time and options space remains uncollapsed until either your battery runs out or you hit something. Because the energy isn't put into the weapon system all up front, you can use that energy to retain the targeting option space for much longer as the weapon moves from launch to target.

Again, I think you're one dimension away: you want to "delay the collapse of the weapon's time and space option space" not necessarily as long as possible but at least until the point at which the target can no longer avoid being hit and there is therefore no longer a need to re-target.  The rifle bullet is fine if fired from close range.  The FPV drone is stuffed if the target drives away from it at 100km/h.  What matters isn't the energy profile of the weapon system per se but its relationship to the intended target.

If you start from an intended effect, you can decide what the best target will be and what the best type of effect would be (chemical, kinetic, phonic, electromagnetic, etc.).  You can then work out the best way to apply that effect to that target (i.e. the type of warhead) in order to achieve the intended overall effect (I'll google synonyms for "effect" in a minute, don't worry).  The mass, volume and fragility of the selected warhead will be the main things that dictate the achievable energy-time curves for your weapon system.  Then you can start worrying about things such as launch signatures or changing trajectories post-launch and whether you can realistically do anything about those things.

10 minutes ago, photon said:

I think when we talk about "precision", we're mostly talking about delaying the collapse of the targeting choice space as long as possible (which requires the weapon to retain energy as long as possible).

I've already written about the "as long as possible" point but you mention retaining energy here and that's important.  Retaining energy is physically expensive and should always be seen as a compromising factor.  All else being equal you want to retain as little energy as necessary after launch in order to achieve your desired effect at the target.

[Battlefront.com]

I think the secret sauce for UVs comes down to four major components:

1. Massive production scale practicality (cost, size, resources, etc.)
2. Portability/Deployability to/from/on the battlefield
3. Ability to choose when/where to strike without aid of other systems (though they can make it even better)
4. Sufficient effect to destroy, or at least damage, pretty much anything it hits

In your mind, flip through all the weapons systems you can think of and count off how many do not fit these four categories and how many do.  I did this and I can't think of anything else that fits, but the pile of things that don't fit is massive.

For legacy systems this kind of comparison gets much, much worse.  For my next point, think of a commercial UAV with a hand grenade strapped to it.  Would this weapon system still be effective if there were 50% fewer, had 50% less ease of moving around the battlefield, 50% more constraints on finding and engaging targets, and 50% less destructive power?  I'd say emphatically YES to all of those.  Now, take any weapon you choose to and apply this and think if you can say the same thing.  Maybe a weapon might answer YES to one or two of these points, but all four?  No, I can't think of anything.

What we have here is a weapon system that has a combination of things going for it that make it an exceptionally good method for killing stuff compared to legacy systems EVEN if you make it less effective than it already is.  So what the f is going to happen to warfare when these things get far better at doing what they are already doing so well at?

Steve

[photon]

2 minutes ago, Tux said:

I've already written about the "as long as possible" point but you mention retaining energy here and that's important.  Retaining energy is physically expensive and should always be seen as a compromising factor.  All else being equal you want to retain as little energy as necessary after launch in order to achieve your desired effect at the target.

I'm convinced. Thanks! This has been really helpful to me.

[Battlefront.com]

As a follow up... ask yourself.  If you were on the battlefield in Ukraine right now, would you rather have 10x more MBTs or 10x more killer drones compared to what you have now?  Would you rather have 10x more aircraft or 10x more killer drones?  Would you rather have 10x more rifles or 10x more killer drones?  Would you rather... OK you get the picture.

Now let's make it a little fairer to our legacy friend...

If you were on the battlefield, would you rather have 10x more MBTs or the same number of killer drones?  Would you rather have 10x more aircraft or the same number of killer drones.  Would you rather have... well, again, you get the picture.

UVs are not some wonder weapon, they are reality.  This is like bringing a gun to a stick fight.  There's very few situations where someone can argue that the stick is the better system.  There are very few situations where the specific type of gun would matter.  Even a single shot muzzle loader is better in more situations than a stick.

This is why I cringe every single time I hear anybody trying to defend legacy weapons.  They are just sticks.  Sharpening them or find one that is a bit thicker just won't change the basic dynamic of where warfare is headed.

Steve

[Holien]

34 minutes ago, photon said:

but good gravy - if you're firing at hostile vessels, how many things have gone badly wrong by that point?

Gun boat diplomacy against an non peer threat...

Cheaper and a shot across the bows tends to make non peer ships stop...

[Tux]

24 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

There are two issues here. 

Ju-87 were not military next-to-useless. This is not me being contrary - its well established and researched that in the initial years of the war, and when the Luftwaffe in general was dominant, that the Stuka was highly effective and useful in its intended role - striking enemy strong points and armor formations. They were very effective in France, Greece and the 1st-2nd years of Barbarossa. As the war went on pilot attrition, increased enemy AA and better Allied planes, tactics and numbers all forced the Stuka out as a viable platform. Even so, the weaker skilled Soviet Airforce meant that Stukas were viable for longer than in the West.

This wasn't just an Axis issue - dive bombers in the Pacific gradually faded back as surface warships increased their AA weaponry, specialist AA Cruisers came into being, as the Japanese surface navy was attritted into a glorified armed coast guard and as better weapons came online.

Secondly, V1s (but really V2s later) were never intended as battlefield weapons, so we cant don't an apples-to-apples comparison here. They were a long range strategic terror weapon, intended to flatten London, terrorize the British into negotiations and thereby buy Hitler time. He personally held the idea that the UK might actually cease fire but AIUI I don't think anyone else shared that as a real possibility.

Just o=some nitpicky stuff to keep us honest

Heh, I knew as soon as I posted that I wouldn't get away with the Ju-87 one.  As much as I'd genuinely enjoy a discussion of the effectiveness of various WW2 aircraft designs I know you'll agree it doesn't belong on this thread.  So, I will grant that it had military utility as far as any aircraft of its type had (although I think it lost its real utility long before it was phased out of service, even on the Eastern Front).  Sooo, I should have written that the Ju-87 was militarily no more useful than a Dauntless or a D3A and was probably substantially less useful than a Typhoon or an F-series Fw-190 but, and this was my point, there's a reason the Stuka gained and retained such a terrifying reputation where those others didn't.  It was the noise.

Regarding V1s, absolutely they can't and shouldn't be compared to Stukas.  My intention was to point out the effectiveness of the noise they made vs the destruction they caused and the fact that that led to their gaining an outsized reputation in the (certainly British) cultural consciousness.  All this in the context of wondering why, for example, Russian terror-attack drones don't try something similar.

Thanks for keeping me honest though - always appreciated.

 

[Kinophile]

12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

So what the f is going to happen to warfare when these things get far better at doing what they are already doing so well at?

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, Ultradave said:

UK trying to cover all the bases as Lord Cameron visits Mar-a-Lago, Biden administration officials, and Members of Congress, presumably the ones swallowing the Russian propaganda that need convincing.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/david-cameron-donald-trump-us-aid-ukraine-russia-war-h3w687nkb

As for Russian propaganda, some comments from rational Republicans in Congress on that subject:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4579289-intel-chair-turner-absolutely-true-russia-propaganda-infected-us-congress/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/06/when-top-republican-says-russian-propaganda-has-infected-gop/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Not that this is any great surprise, but it is refreshing to hear at least some Republicans calling out their colleagues for promoting misinformation.

For The Times and WaPo, I have subscriptions, but I think you still get a certain number of free looks per month without a subscription. If you can't and really want to read them, PM me and I may be able to "gift" the article to you.

Dave

 

Another one from today:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4582430-ken-buck-knocks-moscow-marjorie-taylor-greene/

"Former Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) took shots at Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) on Monday, attacking his former GOP colleague as “Moscow Marjorie.”

The jab comes after former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) called Greene a “very serious legislator” following her threat to force a vote to oust Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) over Ukraine aid. Buck disagreed with McCarthy’s assessment."

This also from The Hill indicates how stupidly obvious this problem is and how even more obvious it is to solve:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4581813-senate-gop-urges-johnson-to-stand-up-to-chaos-caucus/

It boils down to Johnson abandoning the age old Republican concept that no legislation be presented unless it can pass without Democratic support.  Johnson already did this to get he spending bills passed and obviously that worked fine.

The path out of this mess the GOP has made for itself is pretty simple.  Get about 30 Democrats to pledge to support a leadership challenge, put forward a Ukraine package, get that passed, then put forward a motion to revert to the old leadership challenge threshold, and get rid of the anti-democratic system that is now in place.  Single people with single agendas should not be able to call the shots.  I don't care what the issue is or what the position is, that's just not right. Period.

Steve

[cesmonkey]

Interesting post from Russian telegrammer:
https://t.me/rogozin_do/5657
 

Quote

The Ukrainian night is quiet, but the black night sky is teeming with enemy drones .

They fly in entire squadrons consisting of pairs (precisely pairs - you can see this at once on two scans of the video we conducted) strike UAVs of the Baba Yaga type (each such drone carries up to 6 ammunition and is an extremely dangerous weapon for the enemy. Next to the Baba Yaga "flies FPV, but not a kamikaze, but reusable. This type of drone is capable of diving on a target and dropping ammunition on it. This is a kind of unmanned Junkers bomber. It is not difficult to distinguish them from each other - the Baba Yaga is massive and flies in its own mortar at a speed of about 60 km/h. But FPVs are nimble and faster. Their mode of operation is different, the battery discharges faster, and the drone goes to the base, and another immediately takes its place. Therefore, the “carousel” of drones that I observed above itself, is not at all chaotic. Quite the contrary - the proven tactics are obvious, determined by the operational resource of the drones and their role and purpose in the flock.

And on the sides of this trinity of killers their accomplices - DJI drones - fly and conduct additional reconnaissance. Naturally, they are all equipped with high-quality thermal imaging cameras.

They walk like this along all the front-line roads, comb forest belts, identify new situations and objects, hover over them, study them and, if they confirm that the target is worth it, they drop ammunition on it. When a ZUshka began working on drones a few kilometers away from us, all the flocks of drones interrupted their flight over the territory and immediately moved towards the detected target, methodically unwinding it.

Now enemy strike drones fly 15-17 km from the front. If at least three of our servicemen are detected, they report to their headquarters, and from there the command is immediately given to strike the coordinates with at least two cluster shells.

A “wing” is circling above all this unleashed horde of enemy drones - an aircraft-type reconnaissance drone. He coordinates the actions of a squadron or even several enemy squadrons, ensuring their complete and undivided air supremacy.

Tin