How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[hcrof]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

I don't think so.  I think everybody means MBT when they get into a "the tank is dead" discussion.  I don't think anybody is thinking of SPGs, assault guns, or the sort of thing FCS was messing around with. 

What you're arguing in favor of is a REPLACEMENT for the MBT that isn't a MBT.  Therefore, you are fully arguing "the tank is dead".  The discussion you want to have, therefore, is "what should replace the MBT".  That definitely is a wide open question.

Eh, no   What you just did was confirmation bias and convenient selective logic.  Allow me to demonstrate!

First, the Russians are famous for releasing idiotic stuff on the Internet.  Second, you don't think new US weapons systems have even worse things to show for themselves during development?  Or is it they are just smart enough to not let an enlisted man upload it to YouTube?  Third, the Internet is full of things like this:

 

Since when did tanks stop having problems with bogging down?  Tracked vehicles can get themselves stuck in all kinds of situations with Humans right there guiding them.  Look at the above video for some references, or just do a search for "abrams, stuck, mud" and you'll come up with classics like this:

https://www.wideopenspaces.com/how-to-get-a-60-ton-m1-abrams-tank-un-stuck-from-the-mud/

I also found an article from Business Insider that seems particularly relevant, but for some reason I can't get past an "Introductory Offer":

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-new-heavy-abrams-tanks-mud-experts-2023-10?op=1

I personally have used tracked vehicles with far better capabilities than a MBT and I've gotten them stuck before.  On trails.  It's amazing what a frozen log or an errant tree branch can do to running gear.

Aside from the selective logic in the negative, you are neatly omitting the benefits that come from small, light, and maneuverable.  My tracked vehicles, for example, do not require a 70T rated bridge or an entire bridging battalion for me to get across a water obstacle.  I live in the forest and I can tell you that no MBT could cross my land AT ALL without an engineer party clearing a path, yet my small tracked vehicle can to some extent and a smaller UGV would have no problems.

Then there's the whole logistics thing.  Would the infantry rather have 2 or 3 smaller and theoretically less capable vehicles that have a good chance of keeping up with them or 1 vehicle that isn't likely to be available to them at all, and if it is, highly limited in terms of where it can go.  Oh, and would the infantry rather be next to something that can't be heard 5km away or spotted easily by ISR?

I could go on and on and on and on with this.  It's like shooting fish in a barrel with a smooth bore 120mm cannon

 

To recap... let's try and not us selective logic for maintaining bias against UGVs (or anything else for that matter).  Good rule of thumb is to take a proposed standard and apply it to the thing you are defending first before applying it to the thing you're challenging.

Steve

Hold on, I said small UGVs, and posted a video of the type I was referring to. I have been advocating for tankettes (ideally unmanned) which are tiny compared with a modern AFV but not as small as the video I posted (which is a glorified RC car). 

All I am saying is that there is a minimum size and horsepower requirement to stop them getting tangled up in every minor bush or hole, which it sounds like you agree with! 

Edit: UGVs that size may have utility as mine carriers or when transported in a larger vehicle to act as rather static "infantry" occupying a certain position. But not for mobile operations. 

Edited May 31 by hcrof

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

I know you can't respond to everything in detail, but I already addressed this.  UGVs are already here, so that 10 year window you speak of started 10 years ago.

I'll save you the bother of hunting for my post and responding to it because this is enough.  It is from today's news:

https://www.thedefensepost.com/2024/05/31/milrem-themis-drone-factory-estonia/

The private sector doesn't build factories with a production capacity of 500 vehicles a year unless it thinks it can sell at least that number.  Which indicates that you're not operating on the most current information about UGV development.

Steve

I dont deny that UGVs are here, what I am trying to point out is that there are still a lot of questions to be answered around their use, especially in more active tactical roles on the battlefield, not to mention some technical considerations too.

UGVs have technically been around for a long time, mostly in bomb disposal roles. Its not exactly a brand sparkling new concept in that respect. What is a brand new concept that has no doctrine or even much experimentation is the use of armed UGVs serving in combat.

I personally think that in the next 10-15 years we are more likely to see more UGV use in roles that have been experimented with in the past, things like ammo carriers and medevac. These concepts have been tested in Ukraine (on an adhoc basis but even so) and I feel there is tangible and immediate benefits. 

https://www.forces.net/technology/land-vehicles/british-army-puts-unmanned-vehicles-future-test

The overwhelming number of UGVs I see are being tested for mobility and suitability for service in carrying roles to be used on conjunction with current manned vehicles. Very few experiments have so far been conducted with the idea of arming the larger UGVs, let alone developing fully autonomous units. No doctrine currently exists either based on their use. Only the Russians to my knowledge has gone as far as to stick actual autocannons / ATGMs on their wunderwaffe Uran 9. (I covered its...not so spectacular debut above) 

Small armed UGVs have been in extremely limited service here and there for a good 10+ years now, but clearly no one views them as replacements for actual vehicles and instead they seem to be more of a novelty / supplement to roles already being filled. Certainly nothing has come close to even a light tank in terms of firepower, which is why I feel that UGVs need a bit more time to 'cook' before even approaching the possibility of replacing tanks in doctrine. 

Edited May 31 by ArmouredTopHat

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

In wars technology tends to advance more quickly. And in the run up to a war (as with China), there appears on all sides a large appetite to go for unmanned systems.

It also tends to accelerate things that were previously languishing in labs or on dusty shelves.  It can also put existing, or near existing, systems together in ways that hadn't previously been thought of.  And lastly, it can make something that was languishing because of a lack of funding suddenly important enough to get all the funding it needs.

I want to address the last bit as it is important in terms of this war.

One of the reasons systems take so long to develop often has a lot to do with money invested.  Generally speaking, the more money invested the faster it becomes a viable product.  Some things require more time than others (cold fusion, for example), however funding is the key constant to determining the relative speed. 

WW2 was am amazing time for taking things that had been starved of funding and making them into viable products within years.  Sometimes, like the German rocketry program, despite enormous challenges.

This war has woken up many to the need to go back to the eggheads, ask what they've been working on, find the relevant underfunded things which look promising, and fund the Hell out of them.  We're seeing that with UAVs for sure and the success of that is already on the battlefield and making a difference.   USVs (naval) is another example we can point to in this war.  Why should UGVs be an exception?

Steve

[Eddy]

A bit more clarity if the reports from Politico and CNN are true.

https://mastodon.social/@MAKS23/112536428128919769

Quote

Ukraine can:

• Conduct counter-battery fire (including MLRS/Himars).
• Intercept Russian missiles over Russian territory.
• Intercept Russian aviation, which launches bombs in the direction of Ukrainian territory.
• Strike at Russian troops near the border with Ukraine.
• Strike Russian ammo warehouses and logistics centers with artillery and missiles (HIMARS) on the other side of the border.

Looks like they can sort of go after the VKS.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

6 minutes ago, hcrof said:

Hold on, I said small UGVs, and posted a video of the type I was referring to. I have been advocating for tankettes (ideally unmanned) which are tiny compared with a modern AFV but not as small as the video I posted (which is a glorified RC car). 

Finally someone found a way to make tankettes great again! I see it clearly now: a swarm of robotic tankettes coordinated by a very big and very well armoured robotic brain. Let's call the brain unit E.F.L.H. for the old times' sake (short for "Even Fuller and a Liddle Harder").

[Battlefront.com]

11 minutes ago, hcrof said:

Hold on, I said small UGVs, and posted a video of the type I was referring to. I have been advocating for tankettes (ideally unmanned) which are tiny compared with a modern AFV but not as small as the video I posted (which is a glorified RC car). 

All I am saying is that there is a minimum size and horsepower requirement to stop them getting tangled up in every minor bush or hole, which it sounds like you agree with! 

Edit: UGVs that size may have utility as mine carriers or when transported in a larger vehicle to act as rather static "infantry" occupying a certain position. But not for mobile operations. 

You can try to have your cake and eat it too, but I'm not going to make it easy for you

Define small?  The THeMIS is pretty damned small and light, no armor, and it does just fine.  Nations are buying these already:

 

On the other hand, I reminded you that the bigger and heavier a vehicle becomes, the more problems it will have with things like bogging, maneuvering in tight spots, and so forth.  In other words, your metric for assessing off road viability is not really valid in the real world.  Sometimes lighter and smaller is better than bigger and heavier.  Each has tradeoffs, so focusing on the downsides of one without examining the downsides of the other is, as I said, selective logic.

Steve

[kimbosbread]

11 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This war has woken up many to the need to go back to the eggheads, ask what they've been working on, find the relevant underfunded things which look promising, and fund the Hell out of them.  We're seeing that with UAVs for sure and the success of that is already on the battlefield and making a difference.   USVs (naval) is another example we can point to in this war.  Why should UGVs be an exception?

Fortunately private industry (and civic minded investment funds, especially the Saudis) have poured well over 100 billion dollars over the last 2-3 decades to make self-driving cars a reality.

Remember who kicked a lot of this off… this technology was something desired by military planners in the US enough that 20 years ago that they even had a big competition!

[hcrof]

14 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

You can try to have your cake and eat it too, but I'm not going to make it easy for you

Define small?  The THeMIS is pretty damned small and light, no armor, and it does just fine.  Nations are buying these already:

 

On the other hand, I reminded you that the bigger and heavier a vehicle becomes, the more problems it will have with things like bogging, maneuvering in tight spots, and so forth.  In other words, your metric for assessing off road viability is not really valid in the real world.  Sometimes lighter and smaller is better than bigger and heavier.  Each has tradeoffs, so focusing on the downsides of one without examining the downsides of the other is, as I said, selective logic.

Steve

I have deliberately been avoiding actual sizes because I didn't do the detailed study. But the THeMIS is the size and weight of a smart car and 2/3ds of a WW2 universal carrier so I would put it as borderline tankette territory

Edited May 31 by hcrof

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I dont deny that UGVs are here, what I am trying to point out is that there are still a lot of questions to be answered around their use, especially in more active tactical roles on the battlefield, not to mention some technical considerations too.

UGVs have technically been around for a long time, mostly in bomb disposal roles. Its not exactly a brand sparkling new concept in that respect. What is a brand new concept that has no doctrine or even much experimentation is the use of armed UGVs serving in combat.

For sure there's a lot of questions yet to be answered, but things are moving faster than you seem to acknowledge.  Nations in WW2 created brand new weapons and put them into the field within years, if not months.  Things can be figured out very quickly when there's a pressing need.  We're not seeing that sort of level of need now (thankfully), but for sure the process has been greatly accelerated.  Not just by Ukraine and Russia, but by everybody interested in winning their next war.

10 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I personally think that in the next 10-15 years we are more likely to see more UGV use in roles that have been experimented with in the past, things like ammo carriers and medevac. These concepts have been tested in Ukraine (on an adhoc basis but even so) and I feel there is tangible and immediate benefits. 

https://www.forces.net/technology/land-vehicles/british-army-puts-unmanned-vehicles-future-test

The overwhelming number of UGVs I see are being tested for mobility and suitability for service in carrying roles to be used on conjunction with current manned vehicles. Very few experiments have so far been conducted with the idea of arming the larger UGVs, let alone developing fully autonomous units. No doctrine currently exists either based on their use. Only the Russians to my knowledge has gone as far as to stick actual autocannons / ATGMs on their wunderwaffe Uran 9. (I covered its...not so spectacular debut above) 

Small armed UGVs have been in extremely limited service here and there for a good 10+ years now, but clearly no one views them as replacements for actual vehicles and instead they seem to be more of a novelty / supplement to roles already being filled. Certainly nothing has come close to even a light tank in terms of firepower, which is why I feel that UGVs need a bit more time to 'cook' before even approaching the possibility of replacing tanks in doctrine. 

Again, you seem to be operating with outdated perceptions.  This is what Milrem is going to build in its new factory:

The first is armed with a standard RWS with Javelin.  The second is a mockup using Brimstone.
https://www.army-technology.com/features/five-things-operators-can-put-on-a-themis-ugv/

 

Some of these variants are already in Ukraine on a trial basis.

In fact, it seems Russia has already managed to capture a badly damaged THeMIS carrier of some sort:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-forces-capture-estonian-themis-ground-robot-in-ukraine-sparking-concerns-over-technology-exploitation/ar-BB1mZwTf

 

It really doesn't matter what you and I might think the timeframe is as we don't influence things.  However, I think a betting man would look at the available evidence and think that things moving much faster than you think they are, even if not as fast as I think.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, hcrof said:

I have deliberately been avoiding actual sizes because I didn't do the detailed study. But the THeMIS is the size and weight of a smart car and 2/3ds of a WW2 universal carrier so I would put it on the low end of tankette territory

Fair point, but I still think you are underestimating the practical utility of even smaller UGVs on the battlefield.  Especially when comparing them side by side with larger ones.  There's always going to be tradeoffs with any design, so I return to my previous point that if you're going to start picking ones that are unfavorable to design you're challenging, make sure you've tested them against your design first.  Then look at the pros of the design you're challenging and see how well your favored design stacks up.

For 27 years I've been on this Forum arguing that the Sherman was a better tank than the Panther because a) it was more mechanically reliable, and b) because it was produced in much larger numbers.  Sure, the Panther was better armored and had a superior gun (until the Fireflies and 76mm), but fat load of good that does if they aren't where they are needed when they are needed.  The Sherman was.

I also am a big fan of the Stuart for the same reasons.

Steve

[Yet]

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Ok, fine.  This would be Belarusians lobbing Russian missiles, using Russian C4ISR, into Washington state…much better.  The very big point that you are missing is that Russian homeland = US soil in this equation.  Not some ally.

You are purposefully underestimating the risk here for political ends.  We are talking about active targeting in Russia with increasing US/NATO direct participation.  Play internet games all day long, and please keep shaming the West - we love that, but this is an escalation and has real risks associated with the decision.  This is also why the US has signalled very loudly that this will be tightly controlled on their end.

-got it, not purposefully, got me wrong on my use of time as well as love for shaming, and understood- 

so. its more like US loves Maple syrup, and invades Canada. Canada doesnt like Czar Trump and defends 2 years long. US lost its credibility and their military power is dwarfed asking help from anyone who can deliver rockets. RU is happy to deliver and ship em to Montreal - as long as they are shot only on canadian soil and Washington state where the US is opening a 2nd front to Seattle.

escalation... sure! But WW3? - Wouldnt Us (RU) see it coming after invading Canada (Ukrain) and seeing RU support for the last 2 years increasing? 

It still is a conflict with Canada that US started.

ps. Im not trying to be right, Im trying to understand

 

Edited May 31 by Yet

[LongLeftFlank]

3 hours ago, Pete Wenman said:

Everyone is recce, everyone is strike. 

https://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/2022/05/everyone-is-recce-everyone-is-strike.html

 

Carry on, General Martel!

(Understanding that this piece dates from May 2022, England's deep strike apostles *might* have selected a better patron saint. But then again, Liddell Hart, ahem....)

The Reconnaissance Strike Group imagined and championed by retired US Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor remains, in my opinion, the most promising force structure to face the current challenges of land warfare.

[The_Capt]

54 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Certainly nothing has come close to even a light tank in terms of firepower, which is why I feel that UGVs need a bit more time to 'cook' before even approaching the possibility of replacing tanks in doctrine. 

If I may offer, I think you are at risk of over situating here.  As Steve has put up most UGVs being fielded for tactical combat are not aiming to be a “new tank”.  They are carrying next-gen ATGMs.  They are part of the “let’s make tanks go bye bye” effort that every modern military appears intent on, while also hanging onto their own tanks - which is kinda crazy.

The sign of an effective UGV will not be an uncrewed light tank, it will be a cheap and mass produced vehicle with an ability to move and deliver firepower with precision. How that firepower is generated may very well be by UAS, ATGMs or other long range strike munitions.  I think they are more than capable en masse of generating sufficient firepower albeit via other means and ways.

Why do we want this?  It is synthetic mass. We do not need to worry about medical, food, water, pensions, divorces, and all the messy people issues that come with KIAs. We will still have humans, but I am thinking more JTACs than grunts.  We have already seen a video of an FPV squad in Ukraine that I think is the future as humans take on more battlefield management and less pointing stuff that goes boom boom.

How long/when?  Very debatable point.  At old trajectories it may have been a couple decades, but after everyone has seen what unmanned can do in Ukraine, I think we are going to see a lot of heavy investments which will accelerate things.

[The_Capt]

21 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

The Reconnaissance Strike Group imagined and championed by retired US Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor remains, in my opinion, the most promising force structure to face the current challenges of land warfare.

Gotta admit I have seen some of his stuff when he was still sane, and some of it is very good.  It is real shame he has been publicly stuffing his head up his own butt with respect to this war for two years now.

[dan/california]

An extremely unpleasant reminder of why giving up is not even an option for Ukraine. It comes with a side of the UN should just close.

[kimbosbread]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Gotta admit I have seen some of his stuff when he was still sane, and some of it is very good.

To quote my favorite political philosopher:

”…came the realisation that nothing turned, say, a slightly talented musician, into a towering genius faster than the problem of encroaching deafness. And nothing turned a perfectly normal, healthy individual into a great political or military leader better than irreversible brain damage.”

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, dan/california said:

An extremely unpleasant reminder of why giving up is not even an option for Ukraine. It comes with a side of the UN should just close.

Nice to see.

That said, the lead in for this good story is leaving a false impression from what I remember.  The Russians didn't give the evacuation groups any choice.  Lengthy article from Human Rights Watch documenting this process, though it didn't explicitly state evacuation efforts being forced into filtration camps (but I'm sure they were).

https://www.hrw.org/report/2022/09/01/we-had-no-choice/filtration-and-crime-forcibly-transferring-ukrainian-civilians

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

To quote my favorite political philosopher:

”…came the realisation that nothing turned, say, a slightly talented musician, into a towering genius faster than the problem of encroaching deafness. And nothing turned a perfectly normal, healthy individual into a great political or military leader better than irreversible brain damage.”

Good one!  Personally, I look at the Macgregors of this world and think of people like Howard Hughes:

The lesson is you can make some pretty huge contributions to Humanity, and yet transition into being batpoop crazy.

Steve

[dan/california]

https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1796447249628852609

Close up of a supply truck that met an FPV. Really graphic shot of the driver at the end, quit half way if necessary. It also points the problem for mechanized forces that is harder than all the other considerable problems. The supply trucks have to be as well armored and protected as the AFVs.

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

For sure there's a lot of questions yet to be answered, but things are moving faster than you seem to acknowledge.  Nations in WW2 created brand new weapons and put them into the field within years, if not months.  Things can be figured out very quickly when there's a pressing need.  We're not seeing that sort of level of need now (thankfully), but for sure the process has been greatly accelerated.  Not just by Ukraine and Russia, but by everybody interested in winning their next war.

Again, you seem to be operating with outdated perceptions.  This is what Milrem is going to build in its new factory:

The first is armed with a standard RWS with Javelin.  The second is a mockup using Brimstone.
https://www.army-technology.com/features/five-things-operators-can-put-on-a-themis-ugv/

 

Some of these variants are already in Ukraine on a trial basis.

In fact, it seems Russia has already managed to capture a badly damaged THeMIS carrier of some sort:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-forces-capture-estonian-themis-ground-robot-in-ukraine-sparking-concerns-over-technology-exploitation/ar-BB1mZwTf

 

It really doesn't matter what you and I might think the timeframe is as we don't influence things.  However, I think a betting man would look at the available evidence and think that things moving much faster than you think they are, even if not as fast as I think.

Steve

Have any armed versions gone to Ukraine? I am genuinely curious how they might be using them. Or indeed what units they are assigned to and how they are controlled and used. It still seems to be very niche / improvised at the moment.

I do try and keep myself updated on the whole, and while Milrem is very much taking the initiative here, its still a far cry from large scale integration of armed UGVs for doctrinal purpose. To me, half the reason we are seeing so many improvisations and innovations from Ukraine is because they literally do not have other options available and so have to get creative. (This is not a bad thing on its own, just more a reality of things really)

Did you have a look at the Uran 9 stuff I linked earlier?

[Haiduk]

17 hours ago, Offshoot said:

 

Yeah, this is first video allowed to publishing. Reportedly there were several successfull interceptions of Orlan-10 and ZALA. UKR UAV community already have some developments of fast FPV interceptors, but by known reasons information about this doesn't issue. Now works are directed to get at least "beta-version" of interception complex (detection, guidance, drone-interceptor) to unload SHORAD from most tasks of drone hunting.  

[dan/california]

 

[Haiduk]

22 hours ago, FancyCat said:

Fresh UKR florks meme about US allowing to strike Russian soil only from Kharkiv oblast

UKR florks carry road sign "Kharkiv oblast" (means they are going to set it, "expanding" Kharkiv oblast on Sumy or Chernihiv oblasts)

US flork: "Turn back the sign on it place!" 

Edited May 31 by Haiduk

[dan/california]

18 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Fresh UKR florks meme about US allowing to strike Russian soil only from Kharkiv oblast

UKR florks carry road sign "Kharkiv oblast" (means they are going to set it, "expanding" Kharkiv oblast on Sumy or Chernihiv oblasts)

US flork: "Turn back the sign on it place!" 

Personally I would expand it all the way to Tagenrog Airbase, but that s just me...

[Letter from Prague]

1 minute ago, dan/california said:

Personally I would expand it all the way to Tagenrog Airbase, but that s just me...

You misspelled Vladivostok.