How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, NamEndedAllen said:

New War 2024 Marches On
https://www.twz.com/news-features/russian-fpv-drone-seen-attacking-ukrainian-uncrewed-surface-vessel-for-the-first-time

Ooo baby, we got your unmanned on unmanned action right here folks. I think we might see more of this evolution in the next year.

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

I think we might be seeing the early days of what will do the job of tanks better - a system of C4ISR, PGM, infantry and unmanned vehicles.  “Better” also cannot only mean just tactically better.  Tanks are extremely expensive and operationally heavy.  So a cheap mass producible option with a fraction of the operational logistics load is a very good start - and that system we are seeing an early version of is very likely at an advantage.

So we are down to Booms on Xs and mobility-I am even willing to put Survivability to the side because in reality anything can be killed by many things on the modern battlefield. The system I describe above is more mobile through over the horizon fires, light and air.  So we really are down to Boom on X.  The tank is strong.  Gun tech has evolved to the point tanks can hit effectively out 3-5kms.  But what we are seeing are FPVs and precision fires hitting out well past 15km.  Even as inefficient as they are, the offset is costs.  At 1k a pop we can see 50% inefficiencies, hell even 75% and still come out ahead.  So if we are talking moving firepower around the battlefield, a dispersed system of fires linked into a next-gen C4ISR system appears to be a contender.  In reality what is dying is not the tank, it is direct fires.  We still see them, but they appear to no longer be the predominant form of fires.  In fact one could argue they have not been for some time as artillery continues to be then main killer on the battlefield.  What is happening in Ukraine is simply a natural extension of ranges put to over the horizon.  This is a trend that is not going to go away or reverse.  It is pretty simple really - better to kill an enemy before we even get to them.  Driving over corpses is much easier than assaulting.

The other victim of this shift could very well be tac aviation, which has also come under enormous strain.  The offset with be c-UAS, but to use a tank argument, “Well just because a UAV can be killed doesn’t make it obsolete.”  In fact we can lose thousands of UAS based on cost, we cannot lose thousands of MBTs because we cannot produce replacements fast enough.  I would encourage you to spend some more time on this one, I am going to.  The evidence has been mounting steadily but I am not sure when we can call it definitive, maybe not until after this war or beyond.

The counter argument to this is that the cost of something does not necessarily decide its value on the battlefield. Jets for instance are extremely expensive in both training and frame costs, yet can be downed by a missile that is a fraction of its value fired by an 18 year old conscript. Yet we dont declare Jets to be obsolete because of this fact, because Jets deliver all sorts of capability that a ground launched missile cannot. Even in the very unfriendly skies over Ukraine, Jets have been quite clearly of major importance despite some of their more traditional roles like direct CAS being constrained. Like all dynamics on the battlefield, things can change but it rarely results in such tectonic shifts. 

The same is entirely true for tanks. We should be looking at this less with what can kill a tank, but what a tank can do for you. Even with the very unfriendly operation constraints we see, tanks clearly have value to both sides for a variety of roles. We see them operating as indirect fire platforms corrected by drones to close assaults where they deliver gun support. While massed use of tanks is clearly difficult with the conditions in Ukraine, they are still being heavily utilised each day. Their mix of firepower, mobility and protection continue to bring something to the battlefield that currently nothing else, concept or real delivers. 

I dont see direct fire capability dying so instantly, not when its still being utilised frequently and effectively. I believe you are entirely on the money when it comes to range becoming more of an important feature than anything else, but we should be cautious on thinking it becomes an -exclusively- indirect waged war. Much like air dominance being effectively of inconsequential value if you do not have the troops on the ground to take objectives / hold ground. At the end of the day, infantry still need to take and hold ground, which means they need direct fire support. Which means vehicles, which means tanks. While FPV numbers are high, they are not high enough to be able to be used on -every- target that crops up. We might see that with the next generation of drones but currently that remains to be decided as a viable concept. This is all without consideration for more direct counter drone methods which remain in their relative infancy. 

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, hcrof said:

Following on from this post I have had some thoughts on breaching minefields. Upon reflection I think mines will continue to be an important part of warfare after this war, not least because they are incredibly cheap, store for a long time and are proven effective in Ukraine. So any future army needs to prepare for breaching operations through deep and complex minefields. 

So to clear a minefield I would first saturate the area in drones to wipe out as many enemies in the vicinity of the minefield as possible. It is important to hunt down enemy EW systems too, especially if they are currently inactive, since the enemy activating EW will make the mine clearing operation much more difficult.  

Next, a group of tankettes approach the minefield (which is pre-mapped using drones and humans) and be as provocative as possible, shooting up likely enemy positions and drawing fire. Shortly after a drone carrier vehicle releases a small swarm of drones from close range to loiter over known or suspected enemy positions to either suppress them with their sound or straight out kill them. Flying cargo drones carrying MANPADs and ground based AD is pushed forward to intercept helicopters, while a bubble of defensive drones is formed. 

With the enemy suppressed, 3-4 cargo carriers loaded with a MICLIC and a mine plow approach the minefield, blowing lanes through it and immediately following through with plowing to prove the lane. These cargo carriers are unmanned and may even be operating entirely autonomously to reduce the effects of EW. Tankettes follow the plow closely to secure the other end of the breach. 

The enemy may choose to re-seed the minefield during or shortly after the breaching operation with artillery or drone delivered mines. Importantly you have a drone in the air doing nothing but observing the lane so you will see and record exactly where the mines fall. If this happens a) small drones carrying 40mm grenades can identify and blow up the fresh mines b) if the ground is muddy and the fresh mines are too hard to identify, a heavy lift drone can drop a short line charge onto the area where mines were observed to fall c) spare cargo carriers with plows can re-prove the lane. 

In many ways the breaching operation is conventional, but the key differences are the complete drone coverage/suppression and the use of entirely attritable vehicles for the operation. If you lose a $100k cargo carrier or $400k tankette then you just keep pushing them through until the breach is successful. Also, being able to observe the lanes with permanently overwatched drone and having a plan to re-clear the lane quickly means the lanes can stay open. 

On the speculation side, I wonder whether using a geotextile or geogrid on the proven lanes would be a good idea? They are easy to lay and would improve the ground to stop vehicles bogging down, but also keep artillery delivered mines on the surface so they are easy to clear away again. 

In reality once you create the sanitized bubble with effective bridgehead it really does not matter how one clears the mines. At that point the clearance becomes about clearing a an LOC to sustain further expansion of that bubble.  Any number of systems can be employed, but as you note step one is to push a sanitizing bubble, likely 5km out past the obstacle, to keep enemy eyes and hands at a distance.  Using unmanned systems just makes sense to save lives.  Seriously c-bty will also still be needed, as well as deep strike to keep longer range enemy systems at bay.

[FancyCat]

While building for a long time, quick collapse by the U.S on weapons use to be fired onto Russian soil. I wanna note this is another instance of Russia escalating the conflict and as a result, allowing "red lines" to be broken by the West and Ukraine. Very stupid move by Russia. By threatening Kharkiv with occupation, no matter how unlikely, they have allowed Western weapons use in Russia to be expanded upon, even in this limited matter, the door opens for more.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/30/biden-ukraine-weapons-strike-russia-00160731

 

Quote

"The Biden administration has quietly given Ukraine permission to strike inside Russia — solely near the area of Kharkiv — using U.S.-provided weapons"  “'The president recently directed his team to ensure that Ukraine is able to use U.S. weapons for counter-fire purposes in Kharkiv so Ukraine can hit back at Russian forces hitting them or preparing to hit them,' a U.S. official confirmed," @ErinBanco

Quote

The immediate tangible effect is that Ukraine will be able to use HIMARS for targets across the border. Ukraine has been using Bohdana and other non-US supplied artillery to strike into Russia, but they often had to push those howitzers closer to the front line to hit deeper targets, placing them at greater risk. Now HIMARS can engage targets at greater depths.

 

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

The counter argument to this is that the cost of something does not necessarily decide its value on the battlefield.

And we are back to armored knights.  Under cut by cheap mass producible infantry with cheap effective steel throwing.  So, cost kinda does.  We keep very expensive platforms in the field because exactly as you note, nothing cheaper can do the same job for less.  As soon as something can we see a rapid shift.

3 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

The same is entirely true for tanks. We should be looking at this less with what can kill a tank, but what a tank can do for you. Even with the very unfriendly operation constraints we see, tanks clearly have value to both sides for a variety of roles. We see them operating as indirect fire platforms corrected by drones to close assaults where they deliver gun support. While massed use of tanks is clearly difficult with the conditions in Ukraine, they are still being heavily utilised each day. Their mix of firepower, mobility and protection continue to bring something to the battlefield that currently nothing else, concept or real delivers

Now here I am inclined to agree with you.  The tank may go the way of the battleship and see utility for some time, but in a different role.  As I said before, we are living in a Firepower age.  Tanks with indirect fire PGM munitions and a shift in gun tech are still viable to my mind.  A rapidly mobile and protected platform that can deliver rapid precise fires 10-15km out still has a job when teamed with longer range fires, unmanned and infantry armed with PGM.  Then if one does get into a close engagement we have an assault platform that may be brought forward.  What I want is an Engineer demolition gun with a 15km range.  Of course if one is already lobbing high precision munitions we might not even have to bring it forward…which is excellent.

8 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I dont see direct fire capability dying so instantly, not when it’s still being utilised frequently and effectively. I believe you are entirely on the money when it comes to range becoming more of an important feature than anything else, but we should be cautious on thinking it becomes an -exclusively- indirect waged war. Much like air dominance being effectively of inconsequential value if you do not have the troops on the ground to take objectives / hold ground. At the end of the day, infantry still need to take and hold ground, which means they need direct fire support. Which means vehicles, which means tanks. While FPV numbers are high, they are not high enough to be able to be used on -every- target that crops up. We might see that with the next generation of drones but currently that remains to be decided as a viable concept. This is all without consideration for more direct counter drone methods which remain in their relative infancy.

Now here is where things do get interesting.  We are still seeing “seizing and holding ground” by infantry.  But I am not sure what the future of that looks like.  Can unmanned ground vehicles do the same?  Are we looking at UGV and infantry pairing.  When does denial of ground become so effective that it is de facto seizing.  I am definitely inclined to think infantry are not going anywhere.  What they are carried in, armed with and teamed with is wide open.  But we will need human brains as close to the problem as we can get them for some time.  I would argue for battlespace management more than direct targeting.  

As to DF, it will definitely remain a thing but like close combat I think it will become by exception, or at least human direct fires interactions.  DF involving people is a horrible idea when you think about it. Our brains do not respond well to that sort of danger.  Better to leave it to the forward edge of other systems or rely on over the horizon work.  In fact in the future of one is down to DF, it could be a sign you are losing as your offensive bubble has collapsed down to direct LOS.

[ArmouredTopHat]

7 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Good point.  Not the stupid pinecone thing, but this also demonstrates that we are looking at a major shift nicely.  Ukraine was running out of ammunition of many natures.  Artillery rationing was noted.  They were also still deep into manpower shortages.  So the UA just conducted a 3-4 month defence and the backbone of that defence was ah hoc drone technology.

And it worked. The RA did not achieve any operational level breakthroughs and their losses were eye watering.  I have to be honest, I am not even sure why Unmanned Age debate is still a thing.  The largest conventional peer on peer war in over 40 years just saw an entire phase of defence done on the back of civilian drones with RPG warheads glued on them.  The RA threw everything but the washing machine at this offence over the winter based on their losses…and all those losses were in the majority delivered by cheap, nearly disposable drones. To the point it was being successfully employed as a substitute for artillery.

If the UA had used pinecones I am sure you and a few others would be arguing that “well you see the pinecone is less efficient than a tank…ahem, ahem.”  But your support in my argument is well appreciated.

I think it would be fair to say that while FPVs have been a major aspect of the UA defence, there is quite a bit more going on that meshes together to explain....whatever the hell the Russians are doing. 

Minefields continue to be a -major- source of frustration on both sides. Simply putting mine rollers on tanks is not enough now, and artillery delivered mining missions (And increasingly drone delivered mines) and causing further havoc as lines of advance believed cleared suddenly become unsafe again. Mines are the reason a of vehicles are disabled / abandoned in the first place, and I even wonder if they might be the single weapon system responsible for the most 'mission kills' of vehicles to date. Drones enhance the lethality mines further as of course you can now harass the living daylights out of demining operations, personnel based or vehicular. Whenever you look at Telegram chats from soldiers on both sides, there is always always some level of complaining / bitching / reference to minefields and the constraints they inflict when they are attacking. I would perhaps say that they are responsible more than anything for the struggle to achieve any significant level of operational penetration. They simply cause so much attrition and blunt momentum so effectively. 

Ukraine was obviously still firing artillery during this as well, they were just limited in having to pick the best out of lots of targets to engage. Plenty of attacks were broken up ultimately with artillery fire. I do recall reading recently from a Russian source about how FPV drones have made mortars more than anything extremely unsafe to use due to their proximity to the front, which might explain why we are seeing quite a bit less use from them outside of crazy improvised shelters. 

We should also not underestimate the Ukrainian defenders, who have clearly made it clear they have the skill and tenacity to defend under the most difficult of conditions. Its the bloody work of those brave souls holding that is half the reason the Russians are having such dismal performance to begin with. They could have all the FPV's in the world but it would not matter if they did not have people willing to rotate into some truly deplorable and dangerous conditions to hold a frontline. 

Lastly, I know we have to be careful with how critical we should be of Russian doctrine and tactics....but we really do have to wonder why they are shooting themselves in the foot so much with regards to the choices they are making. The veritable host of Russian military issues aside from corruption to a lack of a proper NCO system, the Russians have seemingly settled on trying to attrition the Ukrainians to death, which anyone can tell you based on the Verdun experience is typically a very poor idea when you are doing so by attacking. 

The focus right now seems to be small, consistent attacks in personnel and vehicles along various points in the line, the majority of which seem to end pretty poorly. Even successful pushes are tactically minor in scope and almost always at significant cost. The whole idea being seemingly to avoid large scale losses. The problem with this notion is that over time, these constant losses are in fact -more- costly rather than larger, planned operations using larger scale units attacking in strength, and its all simply unsustainable in the long term.

It would seem the Russian situation is truly dismal with its inability to attack in larger than what were once BTG levels of strength (they have seemingly abandoned BTGs entirely) for whatever reason. this was established and noted pretty quickly in 2022 that Russian units had shockingly poor levels of coordination. The requirement for constant attacks / pressure could be a military decision (Just one more push and the Ukrainians will collapse) or a political one, but it is simply not going to work either way, at least it has not so far. So what we see are very limited / narrow attacks that allow Ukraine to direct reserves into, and the Russians just rotate units in as they get utterly mauled. Its a slow bloody grind but its clear that the Russians are paying in truly horrendous losses. I genuinely do not understand why they do this, but we know the Russian military system is not exactly honest when reporting its successes and losses. They really are their own worst enemy. 

To conclude, I think the key tell is that these tactics were not especially successful even before mass FPV usage, which to me indicates this is what the younger people would call a 'skill issue'. FPV's are just to be put it bluntly, another kick to the legs of a struggling Russian military trying to figure itself out of the quagmire they were already knee deep in. They remain dangerous and have many advantages to be concerned about, but I feel their inability to attack properly despite said advantages is a product of their own incompetency as well as the truly heroic efforts of the AFU. 

 

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I think we might be seeing the early days of what will do the job of tanks better - a system of C4ISR, PGM, infantry and unmanned vehicles.  “Better” also cannot only mean just tactically better.  Tanks are extremely expensive and operationally heavy.  So a cheap mass producible option with a fraction of the operational logistics load is a very good start - and that system we are seeing an early version of is very likely at an advantage.

So we are down to Booms on Xs and mobility-I am even willing to put Survivability to the side because in reality anything can be killed by many things on the modern battlefield. The system I describe above is more mobile through over the horizon fires, light and air.  So we really are down to Boom on X.  The tank is strong.  Gun tech has evolved to the point tanks can hit effectively out 3-5kms.  But what we are seeing are FPVs and precision fires hitting out well past 15km.  Even as inefficient as they are, the offset is costs.  At 1k a pop we can see 50% inefficiencies, hell even 75% and still come out ahead.  So if we are talking moving firepower around the battlefield, a dispersed system of fires linked into a next-gen C4ISR system appears to be a contender.  In reality what is dying is not the tank, it is direct fires.  We still see them, but they appear to no longer be the predominant form of fires.  In fact one could argue they have not been for some time as artillery continues to be then main killer on the battlefield.  What is happening in Ukraine is simply a natural extension of ranges put to over the horizon.  This is a trend that is not going to go away or reverse.  It is pretty simple really - better to kill an enemy before we even get to them.  Driving over corpses is much easier than assaulting.

The other victim of this shift could very well be tac aviation, which has also come under enormous strain.  The offset with be c-UAS, but to use a tank argument, “Well just because a UAV can be killed doesn’t make it obsolete.”  In fact we can lose thousands of UAS based on cost, we cannot lose thousands of MBTs because we cannot produce replacements fast enough.  I would encourage you to spend some more time on this one, I am going to.  The evidence has been mounting steadily but I am not sure when we can call it definitive, maybe not until after this war or beyond.

Unfortunately we don't know when his war is going to stop, or the next one start. My money sadly is longer than we would like on the first question, and far to soon on the second. Who was it that said "Ask me for anything but time"?

[ArmouredTopHat]

26 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

And we are back to armored knights.  Under cut by cheap mass producible infantry with cheap effective steel throwing.  So, cost kinda does.  We keep very expensive platforms in the field because exactly as you note, nothing cheaper can do the same job for less.  As soon as something can we see a rapid shift.

I would argue the knight analogy actually kind of prove me right here. Knights remained pretty important / essential to the military operations of feudal society. Battles like Agincourt that supposedly displayed knight / men at arms weaknesses were in fact won by dismounted knights as much as they were by the longbowmen on the flanks. Despite innovations like crossbows and eventually gunpowder, Knights and their core idea (heavy infantry / cavalry) remained utterly critical components of the medieval battlefield as well as medieval society for hundreds of years.

[Offshoot]

6 hours ago, The_Capt said:

“More than two-thirds of the Russian tanks that Ukraine’s military has destroyed in recent months have been taken out using first-person-view (FPV) drones, a NATO official told Foreign Policy, an increasing sign of Kyiv’s reliance on the unpiloted aircraft as it awaits more artillery ammunition from the United States and other Western countries. “

https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/04/09/drones-russia-tanks-ukraine-war-fpv-artillery/#:~:text=More than two-thirds of,ammunition from the United States
 

 

 

Going by the graph, although Ukraine has lost less equipment than Russia, the proportions taken out by FPV and other means are not too dissimilar. Ukraine has recently lost more equipment to FPVs than other means at a roughly 2:1 ratio.

So is Russia also suffering an artillery ammunition shortage or should other factors also be considered when discussing why FPVs account for most equipment kills? (I can't read the article so don't know if it discusses this.)

Edited May 30 by Offshoot

[Battlefront.com]

Quick note to ArmouredTopHat and a reminder to everybody.  Don't allow Reddit links to embed as they auto play with sound and that's annoying as all get out.

When posting a Reddit link look just at the bottom of the text field and a banner appears giving you the option to post the link "as text".  This gives people the opportunity to view the link at their choosing.

Autoplay for embeds is dumb, but we're stuck with it!

5 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I would wait and see how other militaries respond in the next twenty years before making any decided conclusions. For now it seems everyone still wants tanks, though of course it could just be everyone playing catch-up. Some nations are going utterly tank crazy for instance (Poland with its massive K2 orders)

The whole point of our discussion that "the tank is dead" (this being iteration 5366 by my rough estimation!) is questioning the wisdom of status quo thinking regarding the usefulness of the tank.  Counter arguing that the status quo is correct because it is the status quo isn't really proving the validity of that thinking.  In fact, it more reinforces the challenger's standpoint.

"I think jumping off a cliff without a parachute is not a good idea"

"But everybody is doing it, therefore it's evidence that jumping off a cliff is a good idea"

Poland's military is no different than any others in that it is wedded to long standing concepts of what a military force needs to have to defeat the Russians.  The purchase decisions were made by those people *AND* they were made before this war.  At a very minimum the results of this war should give nations pause to reconsider investing billions into something that might not be what they thought it would be.

5 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Firepower is still key. Infantry only attacks have suffered perhaps even more heavily from artillery / FPV drones given their relative lack of speed onto target, which is a death sentence with the amount of ISR around on the battlefield. 
 

https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/12al6a4/ukrainian_t72_from_the_54th_mechanized_brigade/?utm_source=embedv2&utm_medium=post_embed&utm_content=post_body&embed_host_url=https://community.battlefront.com/index.php

This series of K-2 videos is well known and your use of it illustrates, again, that you're not helping your case any   We examined them in great detail when it was originally posted.  From memory...

First, there are very few of these videos given the hundreds of tanks on the battlefield every day.  You wrote about confirmation bias with videos, well... this is way more confirmation bias than drone videos.  At least there are hundreds of those in evidence.

Second, this tank (and it's buddy) got VERY lucky.  This one was nearly knocked out by a Kornet before it closed with the Russian trench.  If it had been blown up we probably wouldn't have seen the video (see point 1) or if we had it wouldn't have supported your argument.

Third, this engagement was at a time where Russia had almost no drones in the skies, least of all ubiquitous FPVs.  The chances are pretty good that the Russians had no idea this tank was approaching, which meant it was able to get in close pretty much unmolested.  What are the chances that would happen today?  Not very likely.

Fourth, the tank spent quite a lot of time rolling around the trench without much fear of being hit by anything because conditions at the time were that the Russians were woefully spread out and practiced combined arms about as well as a politician during campaign season could practice being a mime.

Lastly, did you read the aftermath of this engagement?  Somewhere there was a text description and in it the tank had expended ALL of its shells on this one tiny position and drove over it because, effectively, it had nothing else it could do except withdraw.  Meaning, all those shells did was suppress, not kill, the defending infantry.  Even after driving over and over and over the trench it didn't kill everybody.

 

Soooo... this tank video demonstrates, to me, that even a lucky tank in favorable circumstances didn't achieve very much given the expense and degree of risk it took to achieve the very small effect it had on the battlefield as a whole.

5 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Now, I think there is certainly an argument to be made that tanks will probably undergo a radical change in the far future. Automation or even drone tanks could very much be a thing, with tanks potentially becoming more of a munition to be expended than a a vehicle. I still think we are a long way off viable drone platforms as part of a unit (even with experimental use in Ukraine) 

I don't think we're a long way off at all.  Previous in-depth discussions over the past 2+ years have led me to believe we're already here and the only thing dragging this out is countries like Poland continuing to invest in battleships.  I mean tanks. 

Personally, I have been in the "the days of the tank are numbered" for about 15 years now.  At the time I thought the actual death would be "a long ways off".  The start of this war made me reassess that opinion to the detriment of the tank.  The longer this war goes on the more evidence I see that it's bleeding out before our eyes.

If I were in charge of procurement for a national defense force I would budget exactly $0 for tanks.  Whatever I was going to spend on them I would spend on existing or rapidly emerging capabilities that could replace or, at least, duplicate the utility of the tank.  I bet I could have a far more effective force for each $1 of defense spending than if I had it invested in tanks.

I'm not quite as convinced about IFVs, but I am skeptical of their future too.

Steve

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

34 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Now here is where things do get interesting.  We are still seeing “seizing and holding ground” by infantry.  But I am not sure what the future of that looks like.  Can unmanned ground vehicles do the same?  Are we looking at UGV and infantry pairing.  When does denial of ground become so effective that it is de facto seizing.  I am definitely inclined to think infantry are not going anywhere.  What they are carried in, armed with and teamed with is wide open.  But we will need human brains as close to the problem as we can get them for some time.  I would argue for battlespace management more than direct targeting.  

As to DF, it will definitely remain a thing but like close combat I think it will become by exception, or at least human direct fires interactions.  DF involving people is a horrible idea when you think about it. Our brains do not respond well to that sort of danger.  Better to leave it to the forward edge of other systems or rely on over the horizon work.  In fact in the future of one is down to DF, it could be a sign you are losing as your offensive bubble has collapsed down to direct LOS.

I feel we are still a fair bit away from truly unmanned battlefields. Removing the human component entirely would constitute perhaps the most radical shift in warfare in our history...because it removes the one thing that's always featured in war until this point in time. 

I feel we are on but the start of the road of that particular journey. UGVs are being tested in Ukraine atm, but they have not had any striking success just yet. 

[Battlefront.com]

Incredible late breaking news!!!!  No, not the NY trial thing, but this:

Biden to Allow Ukraine to Use U.S. Weapons to Strike Inside Russia

The permission is intended solely for Ukraine to attack military sites in Russia being used to attack the Kharkiv area, U.S. officials said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/30/us/politics/biden-ukraine-russia-weapons.html

So it's not a blanket approval, but it's a step in the right direction that acknowledges the stupidity of the restrictions.  It's a start:

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

14 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Lastly, did you read the aftermath of this engagement?  Somewhere there was a text description and in it the tank had expended ALL of its shells on this one tiny position and drove over it because, effectively, it had nothing else it could do except withdraw.  Meaning, all those shells did was suppress, not kill, the defending infantry.  Even after driving over and over and over the trench it didn't kill everybody.

You clearly see people within a metre or so of the tank rounds impacting, they are most assuredly dead from pressure, let alone explosive power. I feel the tank expending all of its rounds is a pretty common thing in war in general, the same reason why Americans were firing Javelin missiles at buildings in Afghanistan. You use what you have and normally at the time you are not thinking about the costs in the moment of combat...or if perhaps you are overkilling a little bit. (I am guilty of doing that a lot in combat mission!!!)

I recall a UA tanker from an interview in 2023 saying that they frequently empty the carousal in combat operations (Of HEAT / Fragmentation I would assume) even if its just one position they are dealing with. I dont see this as indicative of failure but more the fact the tanks are surviving to literally fire everything they have before leaving. 

I would also say that the tank pretty much achieved its purpose in that instance, it shot the hell out of the position and allowed friendly infantry to take said position with minimal issue. That seems entirely in line with what a tanks role is (Even if it came at -very- near miss of a Kornet strike)

*Also, really sorry about the reddit thing, will remember that for next time!

Edited May 30 by ArmouredTopHat

[The_Capt]

8 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I would argue the knight analogy actually kind of prove me right here. Knights remained pretty important / essential to the military operations of feudal society. Battles like Agincourt that supposedly displayed knight / men at arms weaknesses were in fact won by dismounted knights as much as they were by the longbowmen on the flanks. Despite innovations like crossbows and eventually gunpowder, Knights and their core idea (heavy infantry / cavalry) remained utterly critical components of the medieval battlefield as well as medieval society for hundreds of years.

Until they didn’t, which kinda speaks to my point.  Every military technology has a last day.  In the modern era those last days seem to come faster, following the pace of technological development.  So the amored knight got out priced by massed infantry with cheap and easy direct fire systems.  One could take a peasant and train them on a firearm in a few days.  In fact it took longer to train on how to move in formations. Knights cost an obscene amount of money and training was a lifetime pursuit.  They simply could not keep up.

So are we on the tanks last days?  That is the question.  We know there will be one.  Cavalry had a last day, so we know it will happen.  I have been tracking this unmanned thing since Nagorno Karabakh, UAS and an increasing spotter shooter loop with them has been in the wind since Lebanon in 06.  This is not sudden in the least.  My sense is “we don’t know”, but I would not invest billions in this platform until we do.  Further I would not count on another hundred years based on the pace of change we are seeing.  I am not even sure about another decade based on somethings I am seeing.

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I would also say that the tank pretty much achieved its purpose in that instance, it shot the hell out of the position and allowed friendly infantry to take said position with minimal issue. That seems entirely in line with what a tanks role is (Even if it came at -very- near miss of a Kornet strike)

How about addressing the other points I made?   This was not the most important one I raised.

And I didn't say all those rounds killed nobody, I just said that it didn't achieve it's victory by killing everybody with the shells.  It had to run over them, and even then it didn't kill everybody.

The points you skipped over are important because, taken as a whole, they argue that the example you chose was an exception to a rule even in a year ago, now it would be even more so.

2 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

*Also, really sorry about the reddit thing, will remember that for next time!

No problem.  You're not the first, nor the last, to do it.  Stupid Reddit!

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

Just now, The_Capt said:

Until they didn’t, which kinda speaks to my point.  Every military technology has a last day.  In the modern era those last days seem to come faster, following the pace of technological development.  So the amored knight got out priced by massed infantry with cheap and easy direct fire systems.  One could take a peasant and train them on a firearm in a few days.  In fact it took longer to train on how to move in formations. Knights cost an obscene amount of money and training was a lifetime pursuit.  They simply could not keep up.

So are we on the tanks last days?  That is the question.  We know there will be one.  Cavalry had a last day, so we know it will happen.  I have been tracking this unmanned thing since Nagorno Karabakh, UAS and an increasing spotter shooter loop with them has been in the wind since Lebanon in 06.  This is not sudden in the least.  My sense is “we don’t know”, but I would not invest billions in this platform until we do.  Further I would not count on another hundred years based on the pace of change we are seeing.  I am not even sure about another decade based on somethings I am seeing.

A fair point, though I would argue by the time the Knight became obsolete as a concept, the battlefield was very much radically different. As crazy as innovations have been in Ukraine, the battlefield is still similar in most respects to recent conflicts, using the same equipment for the most part. 

I just feel we should be pragmatic about this. Evolution is a certainty, obsolescence is inevitable but again, I feel it might be too early to tell.

(Also please send help my fingers are hurting from all this bloody typing! Feeling like I am writing a dissertation again)

[The_Capt]

7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Incredible late breaking news!!!!  No, not the NY trial thing, but this:

Biden to Allow Ukraine to Use U.S. Weapons to Strike Inside Russia

The permission is intended solely for Ukraine to attack military sites in Russia being used to attack the Kharkiv area, U.S. officials said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/30/us/politics/biden-ukraine-russia-weapons.html

So it's not a blanket approval, but it's a step in the right direction that acknowledges the stupidity of the restrictions.  It's a start:

Steve

I think we are sticking a toe over a red line in a gradual escalation.  Before we get to ho hum, we are talking about US weapons and targeting support, killing Russians…in Russia. In 2024. Wrapped your heads around that one and let it sink in.  Imagine for just a second if the roles were reversed…we would be looking at WW3.

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I think we are sticking a toe over a red line in a gradual escalation.  Before we get to ho hum, we are talking about US weapons and targeting support, killing Russians…in Russia. In 2024. Wrapped your heads around that one and let it sink in.  Imagine for just a second if the roles were reversed…we would be looking at WW3.

Oh, I agree!  I've been watching the shift over the past few days and this is a rare example of the US (probably) being backed into a corner by its NATO allies.  This announcement is a compromise which, I expect, is a temporary state before the US allows the targeting of any "legitimate targets directly employed in the war against Ukraine".  Something like that.

Today I had a chance to listen to a couple of Perun vids while driving.  In the Kharkiv one he spent some time criticizing the restrictions and describing how they impacted the events that unfolded from the offensive.

It will be interesting to see what happens next.  My prediction is that not much will effectively change as Russia is clearly spent in this area, yet has no intentions of retreating.  I don't see Ukraine taking back ground any time soon.

Steve

[dan/california]

5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Oh, I agree!  I've been watching the shift over the past few days and this is a rare example of the US (probably) being backed into a corner by its NATO allies.  This announcement is a compromise which, I expect, is a temporary state before the US allows the targeting of any "legitimate targets directly employed in the war against Ukraine".  Something like that.

Today I had a chance to listen to a couple of Perun vids while driving.  In the Kharkiv one he spent some time criticizing the restrictions and describing how they impacted the events that unfolded from the offensive.

It will be interesting to see what happens next.  My prediction is that not much will effectively change as Russia is clearly spent in this area, yet has no intentions of retreating.  I don't see Ukraine taking back ground any time soon.

Steve

The ability to at least disrupt Russian glide bomb attacks is the most immediate question. If the Ukrainians have or will soon get something that can do that it will make a huge difference to both civilians in Kharkiv, and the soldiers defending them.

[sburke]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

The RA threw everything but the washing machine at this offence over the winter based on their losses…

In their defense, they don't actually have many washing machines.  In fact it is rumored that Putin began this war due to a shortage of washing machines and toilets in Russia.

[ArmouredTopHat]

30 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

How about addressing the other points I made?   This was not the most important one I raised.

And I didn't say all those rounds killed nobody, I just said that it didn't achieve it's victory by killing everybody with the shells.  It had to run over them, and even then it didn't kill everybody.

The points you skipped over are important because, taken as a whole, they argue that the example you chose was an exception to a rule even in a year ago, now it would be even more so.

I am getting to them, my apologies. I just needed a moment to rest on the hamster wheel before typing away madly again.
 

47 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The whole point of our discussion that "the tank is dead" (this being iteration 5366 by my rough estimation!) is questioning the wisdom of status quo thinking regarding the usefulness of the tank.  Counter arguing that the status quo is correct because it is the status quo isn't really proving the validity of that thinking.  In fact, it more reinforces the challenger's standpoint.

"I think jumping off a cliff without a parachute is not a good idea"

"But everybody is doing it, therefore it's evidence that jumping off a cliff is a good idea"

Poland's military is no different than any others in that it is wedded to long standing concepts of what a military force needs to have to defeat the Russians.  The purchase decisions were made by those people *AND* they were made before this war.  At a very minimum the results of this war should give nations pause to reconsider investing billions into something that might not be what they thought it would be.

To clarify, I do not believe for a moment that the status quo is either acceptable or likely to endure. Short term we should expect and hope that some very hard questions are being asked about exact definition of role and what can be done to improve the situation. I outlined some points earlier on what are likely to be immediate changes such as APS, and this would presumably take place before wider ideas / experiments are conducted into what future designs might look like. New vehicles are substantially easier to design and put into service compared to radical army composition reforms. Its logical to assume the former will take place before the latter.

I certainly think that we might want to consider the notion that upgraded cold war tank frames are perhaps no longer as fit for purpose as they once were, and that we really want to be looking at entirely new designs that can achieve the same thing more efficiently (ideally with lower cost as well) I believe this is far more likely in the next twenty years short of something truly radical to happen.

 

47 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

First, there are very few of these videos given the hundreds of tanks on the battlefield every day.  You wrote about confirmation bias with videos, well... this is way more confirmation bias than drone videos.  At least there are hundreds of those in evidence.

Second, this tank (and it's buddy) got VERY lucky.  This one was nearly knocked out by a Kornet before it closed with the Russian trench.  If it had been blown up we probably wouldn't have seen the video (see point 1) or if we had it wouldn't have supported your argument.

Third, this engagement was at a time where Russia had almost no drones in the skies, least of all ubiquitous FPVs.  The chances are pretty good that the Russians had no idea this tank was approaching, which meant it was able to get in close pretty much unmolested.  What are the chances that would happen today?  Not very likely.

Fourth, the tank spent quite a lot of time rolling around the trench without much fear of being hit by anything because conditions at the time were that the Russians were woefully spread out and practiced combined arms about as well as a politician during campaign season could practice being a mime.

I personally find videos that detail the course of an engagement more useful for gaining conclusions compared to more numerous videos of what are in effect snapshots of one. Of course you are right, that such videos are entirely subject to the same issues of confirmation bias. My only refute for that is we have a reasonable collection of said videos so there is somewhat of a trend at least. We perhaps wont have a truly adequate picture of things until post war either way. You are entirely correct that these sorts of videos are rare regardless of outcome.  

Now, what you say is entirely reasonable, the tank does narrowly avoid what probably would of killed it...though I would point out that such danger exists for everyone on the frontline. Battlefield is a dangerous place! With regards to FPV, we do have a fair few videos of tanks reaching trench lines from this year and last, even with all the FPV's flying around. 

The visually confirmed stuff I posted earlier today is perhaps more useful as an AAR, Tanks do get hit by FPVs, but the majority are damaging hits and not destructions, or destructions on already knocked out vehicles. Clearly other things are knocking out tanks is the reasonable deduction to make from that. I would assume we will perhaps get a better picture of that post war, I still suspect mines are currently the biggest issue for both sides and their tank usage, simply due to the sheer amount being laid all over the place. 
 

47 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I don't think we're a long way off at all.  Previous in-depth discussions over the past 2+ years have led me to believe we're already here and the only thing dragging this out is countries like Poland continuing to invest in battleships.  I mean tanks. 

I mean, I would be much more inclined to agree with you if we saw some more tangible evidence of countries looking to really seriously pursue something that actually replaces or at least supplements a tanks role. UGVs could perhaps do so but as of yet no one is really going too hard on them outside of niche / supplemental uses. There are a host of issues to be yet solved with said systems, and no one has gotten close with any sort of sizable UGV into practical service that mounts anything bigger than machine guns, let alone develop doctrine or have practical experience with them (I believe the most significant thing we have seen in Ukraine are some small UGVs armed with AGS-17s)
 

Edited May 30 by ArmouredTopHat

[Offshoot]

4 hours ago, omae2 said:

Did something changed at Kharkiv?

The news in my country media is talking about a russian summer offensive, but im not sure if they talk about the one on the early days of may or there is something going on that im not aware.

They could be referring to this as per the ISW from a few days ago - https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-26-2024

Quote

Russian forces are reportedly concentrating forces of unspecified size in western Belgorod Oblast near the border with Ukraine, likely to fix and draw Ukrainian forces to the area and prepare for offensive operations that aim to expand the Russian foothold in the international border area in northeastern Ukraine.

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

As a side note, I cant recall if these were posted here before but they make for good watches. Chieftain really does make some compelling points that are worth hearing out. 
 

 

 

 

Edited May 30 by ArmouredTopHat

[Battlefront.com]

16 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I am getting to them, my apologies. I just needed a moment to rest on the hamster wheel before typing away madly again.
 

You're ability to stay on the hamster wheel as long and as successfully as you are is admirable!

I have an advantage, I think, in that I've had this debate here on this thread a few dozen times already.  Your points are very well stated, but so far I've not seen anything new being introduced in defense of the tank.  The two Chieftain videos, for example, were posted here 1 and 2 years ago (respectively) when they first hit.  I'm going to rewatch the more recent one that was in response to Perun's take on things.  I don't remember the counter arguments he laid out and I do respect the Chieftain's perspective.

16 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

To clarify, I do not believe for a moment that the status quo is either acceptable or likely to endure. Short term we should expect and hope that some very hard questions are being asked about exact definition of role and what can be done to improve the situation. I outlined some points earlier on what are likely to be immediate changes such as APS, and this would presumably take place before wider ideas / experiments are conducted into what future designs might look like. New vehicles are substantially easier to design and put into service compared to radical army composition reforms. Its logical to assume the former will take place before the latter.

I certainly think that we might want to consider the notion that upgraded cold war tank frames are perhaps no longer as fit for purpose as they once were, and that we really want to be looking at entirely new designs that can achieve the same thing more efficiently (ideally with lower cost as well) I believe this is far more likely in the next twenty years short of something truly radical to happen.

The consistent theme I like most about your posts is that you're mostly admitting that the days of the tank are numbered.  At least as it is today.  Previous discussions were more of a religious manner where the defenders of the tanks resorted to suggesting we challengers be burned at the stake for heresy

We had long discussions about the practicality of known tech being used to keep the MBT on in its traditional role.  It never ended in a strong position for the tank.  Even if it is practical from an engineering standpoint (and there is debate about that), the end result is something that is even more expensive to build, maintain, and support in an environment where its threats are relatively cheap and readily deployable.  In other words, battleships being used to launch cruise missiles and theoretically bombard shorelines that in reality it can't get close to because of Neptune type weapons.

The primary problem with trying to argue for the retention of the tank is that all the money and effort that is put into what is probably (at least strongly suspected) to be a dead end is the wrong thing to do.  Even as an interim solution.

16 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I personally find videos that detail the course of an engagement more useful for gaining conclusions compared to more numerous videos of what are in effect snapshots of one. Of course you are right, that such videos are entirely subject to the same issues of confirmation bias. My only refute for that is we have a reasonable collection of said videos so there is somewhat of a trend at least. We perhaps wont have a truly adequate picture of things until post war either way. You are entirely correct that these sorts of videos are rare regardless of outcome. 

I certainly don't want to knock the K-2 videos.  I've spent hours of my life on the edge of my seat watching them.  As a guy who makes simulations of this stuff, they are fascinating beyond all get-out.  However, if one wants to look at videos for trends, videos tanks successfully fulfilling their traditional role are dwarfed by videos of tanks being snuffed out before they even get within range of the enemy's positions.  Which is why we are having this discussion.

16 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

The visually confirmed stuff I posted earlier today is perhaps more useful as an AAR, Tanks do get hit by FPVs, but the majority are damaging hits and not destructions, or destructions on already knocked out vehicles. Clearly other things are knocking out tanks is the reasonable deduction to make from that. I would assume we will perhaps get a better picture of that post war, I still suspect mines are currently the biggest issue for both sides and their tank usage, simply due to the sheer amount being laid all over the place.

The bigger lesson of these videos isn't that tanks can survive FPVs, but that tanks can't do a bloody thing to stop being hit by FPVs.  This matters because the usual FPVs we see are improvised with explosives that are unlikely to cause a fatal hit.  Just wait until better purpose built ones come out in large numbers at affordable prices.

As for the effectiveness of these FPVs we see in the videos, when we see a tank survive a direct hit we don't know what happened to the tank other than that.  Did it lose its very expensive gunnery optics?  Did it lose its radio?  Is the commander's view blocked by scorching or a curled up piece of sheet metal?  We don't know.  But there are lots of soft bits on tanks that are required for optimal, if not basic, functionality.  Blinding a tank can be just as effective, at the time anyway, as killing it.

I'd also not underestimate the value of FPVs in changing a nation's spreadsheet tracking of "recoverable" and "unrecoverable" loses.  Sure, a mine might have stopped X tank from proceeding, so credit the mine with a mobility kill.  However, if it weren't for the FPV that lit it off it might have been back on the battlefield in a day or two if the mine damage was routinely localized to a section of track and some running gear.

When calculating the value of tanks, one has to calculate the chances of that expense not surviving an encounter with the enemy.  FPVs have most likely shifted a large chunk of "recoverable" tanks into "unrecoverable".  That matters.

16 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I mean, I would be much more inclined to agree with you if we saw some more tangible evidence of countries looking to really seriously pursue something that actually replaces or at least supplements a tanks role. UGVs could perhaps do so but as of yet no one is really going too hard on them outside of niche / supplemental uses. There are a host of issues to be yet solved with said systems, and no one has gotten close with any sort of sizable UGV into practical service that mounts anything bigger than machine guns, let alone develop doctrine or have practical experience with them (I believe the most significant thing we have seen in Ukraine are some small UGVs armed with AGS-17s)

Again, it shouldn't be surprising that the countries that have deeply vested interests in MBTs aren't so quick to look for replacements.  Yet it is happening and this war is most definitely accelerating that interest.  Your MoD is certainly quite interested in UGVs.

At the moment we have a bit of a standoff.  Tanks are not yet completely useless, but given their costs and expectations they aren't very useful.  UAVs, top attack weapons, and other things are showing that there's an end to the tank in sight.  UGVs may not be ready to replace them yet, but if I had $1b to invest in figuring out a solution I would be investing it into UGVs and not MBTs.  That's what a smart investor would do if said investor was a long term thinker.  Which, unfortunately, is the problem with our procurement system in the West.  Long term solutions are sold to buyers based on short term interests of the sellers.  The two aren't always incompatible concepts, but in this case I think they are.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

As a side note, I cant recall if these were posted here before but they make for good watches. Chieftain really does make some compelling points that are worth hearing out. 
 

 

 

 

I just rewatched the relevant bits of these videos

The first video is spot on relevant, but 2 years out of date.  The flaw in his premise is that history has already shown he's wrong.  His argument boils down to "the tank does stuff nothing else can do, it's not is vulnerable as you think, industry will come up with some gizmo to make it more survivable, and there's nothing to replace it".  All of these have been legitimately called into question here and elsewhere.  I take particular issue with the "industry will come up with some gizmo" argument as I don't see it as realistic nor even something one should aspire to.  By contrast, Perun's arguments he was sparring against have fared better over the past 2 years.

The second video is largely irrelevant.  The only relevant bit was a rather disappointing dismissal of what drones can do because we're only seeing some of the evidence.  That's like saying "I only saw the highlights of X sports game, therefore I can't take any lessons from it".  We had that discussion a few pages ago.

The third video is actually not relevant at all to our debate.  Chieftain is talking about how the T-62s, if upgraded with thermals, aren't completely useless.  He's saying it is as good as a similarly outfitted T-72 from a practical standpoint.  He makes good points, but it's unrelated to discussing the utility of tanks generally.

In conclusion, I don't think you're helping your arguments by posting videos like these

Steve