How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[holoween]

27 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

For the last 30-40 years the West has spent trillions on trying to make the only threat to a tank another tank.

I wholly disagree with this idea. Weve spend this ammount of money to be able to destroy as many tanks/IFVs as quickly as we can because that has been the primary threat since NATO exists.

The current MBT generation very well reflects that. They are for all intents and purposes tank destroyers and entirely optimized for that and in the 500m to 2500m range they are unparalelled in that task. For the longest time most didnt even have a proper HE round and the primary rounds were KE and HEAT. The IFVs were the ones doing the infantry support.

 

27 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

What is needed now is for the Pentagon to get a bunch of people like us into a room and talk about what we see as the future of combined arms tactical warfare.  Why a group like us?  Because we are both open minded and opinionated.  Based on past times of disruption it seems to me that a lot of the professionals paid to talk about this stuff are just opinionated

The discussion needs to start with examining tactics used in this and other recent (smaller, thankfully) wars.  Look at trends, figure out what is more-or-less universal and what is conflict specific.  That should provide a pretty solid base from which to design theoretical combined arms concepts.  From there, make some suggestions about what "blank slate" capabilities, using existing and near future technologies, would be needed to fulfill this new tactical doctrine.  Put it all together and game it out to see how it goes, adjust, try again, etc.  Then, and only then, talk about what is needed.  Maybe some form of tank survives all this rigor, though I doubt it.  Almost lastly, figure out what in the existing forces are no longer needed and how much cutting them results in financial savings.  Finally, take the savings from abandoning legacy systems and plow it into the replacements instead of trying to have those costs be on top of unnecessary legacy systems.  Cutting out one type of tank, aircraft, and ship would likely free up enough capital to fund redoing the entire military.

Although I am a huge proponent of unmanned ground, air, and sea vehicles displacing a lot of what is currently in use, I do not rule out the possibility that we'd see something like the AMX-10 RC "make the cut" while something like the Abrams getting chucked.

Steve

The core and unique selling point of a tank is if a tank moves somewhere and encounters an enemy no matter what it is a tank stands a good chance to take it out without being taken out in return.

That capability is so valuable that it will get continuously replicated and id argue its the essence of what makes a tank. What exact form this takes remains to be seen and it could very well eventually become unmanned and at some point most likely will have to be fully automated for short reaction times.

[Kinophile]

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/iron-caterpillar-affordable-unmanned-mine-clearing-system-being-developed-in-ukraine/

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, holoween said:

I wholly disagree with this idea. Weve spend this ammount of money to be able to destroy as many tanks/IFVs as quickly as we can because that has been the primary threat since NATO exists.

The current MBT generation very well reflects that. They are for all intents and purposes tank destroyers and entirely optimized for that and in the 500m to 2500m range they are unparalelled in that task. For the longest time most didnt even have a proper HE round and the primary rounds were KE and HEAT. The IFVs were the ones doing the infantry support.

I think we're agreeing here.  MBTs are not designed for infantry support.  All the money that went into MBTs has been to survive a straight up fright with another tank and, increasingly, powerful ATGMs.  It has not been spent on a vehicle that can drive 40km/h into a field, fire 10 rounds, then drive away as quickly as possible before any number of things kills it.

There's plenty of other weapons out there that are optimized for killing anything that moves out to 4000km range with a logistics footprint of two boots or 4 wheels.  On the modern battlefield I'd argue that overall they are more survivable than MBTs.  Certainly they are more plentiful (see previous comments I made about 1990 Desert Shield).

To me, this is not a good use of billions of Dollars.  So if this is really the only role left for an MBT, then we should ditch MBTs.

1 hour ago, holoween said:

The core and unique selling point of a tank is if a tank moves somewhere and encounters an enemy no matter what it is a tank stands a good chance to take it out without being taken out in return.

Every day forward this is less true than the day before.  With the next generation of UGVs, UAVs, and lighter manned systems there will come a point when it isn't true at all.

We constantly try to keep in mind lessons from Ukraine that might not be applicable going forward.  The Ukrainian and Russian reliance on tanks, today, is one of those things that I think is specific to this war.  The next war?  I don't see tanks being anything other than a liability (I am speaking strategically, operationally, as well as tactically).

Steve

[chuckdyke]

37 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

To me, this is not a good use of billions of Dollars.  So if this is really the only role left for an MBT, then we should ditch MBTs.

It was suggested by an Austrian Military Channel to use Leo1 for infantry support. He was using the word Stug the Centurion 20PDR was also used for this role in Vietnam. Interesting the new US 105 mm system is just introduced the specs at first look surprising similar to the Leo 1 same weight and same gun.

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

It was suggested by an Austrian Military Channel to use Leo1 for infantry support. He was using the word Stug the Centurion 20PDR was also used for this role in Vietnam. Interesting the new US 105 mm system is just introduced the specs at first look surprising similar to the Leo 1 same weight and same gun.

Pet issue request, when the new modern game comes out, can we get one version of this tank with 105 mm it actually has, and one version with a breach loading 120mm mortar? Because I think the mortar version makes a ton more sense, and I am sure someone will volunteer to show me how wrong I am. But I woud really like to test the theory.

 

Edited September 17, 2023 by dan/california

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-sept-16-2023

 A Russian insider source compared Gurulev to deceased Wagner Group financier Yevgeny Prigozhin in his role as the “front line truth teller.”[18]

 

He should avoid windows, and street crossings, and.....

 

[billbindc]

I feel like we should be celebrating more that Kadyrov is very likely dead. 

[dan/california]

12 minutes ago, billbindc said:

I feel like we should be celebrating more that Kadyrov is very likely dead. 

I have beer cold waiting for the Russians to admit it.

[LuckyDog]

It would seem that someone is watching - it remains to be seen if a nice summary (that could have been lifted from the last couple of pages of this thread) can be put into action.

https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2023/09/army-announces-new-way-of-winning-future-wars/

[dan/california]

13 minutes ago, LuckyDog said:

It would seem that someone is watching - it remains to be seen if a nice summary (that could have been lifted from the last couple of pages of this thread) can be put into action.

https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2023/09/army-announces-new-way-of-winning-future-wars/

Yeah, this is the thread rendered as policy, procurement, and planning. Now they just need to take the last step to eliminate "unhealthy tank lust" as The_Capt calls it, and send their entire tank fleet to Ukraine. Where it can be expended killing the army it was built to kill, instead of quietly rusting away.

Combat_Infantryman, did you write this up and slip it into the appropriate pile, on the appropriate desk, at just the right time?

[Fenris]

53 minutes ago, billbindc said:

I feel like we should be celebrating more that Kadyrov is very likely dead. 

Anyone have an insight on what happens in Chechnya if he does go?

[Battlefront.com]

56 minutes ago, billbindc said:

I feel like we should be celebrating more that Kadyrov is very likely dead. 

I'm waiting for the MSN to pick up on the story.  So far it's only sources that have a bit of a habit of jumping the gun on stuff like this.  Seeing as the only source cited right now is Ukraine's intel people, there's not much else to check out.

Personally, I believe Putin's gnome is in bad shape.  He's not the sort to stay out of the limelight if there's a rumor floating around that he's incapacitated.  Warlord/mafia rules... never let them see you sweat

With that, I'm going to have a very expensive whiskey barrel aged beer on stand by.  I don't normally celebrate someone's death, but since last year I've been convinced to make a lot of exceptions.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, Fenris said:

Anyone have an insight on what happens in Chechnya if he does go?

Some good stuff posted a couple of pages ago.  The short is Kadyrov's rule is that of a clan so one of his sons will take over and, likely, things will go on as they have been.  But a transition like this with so much stress and higher than usual stakes... we might need to get some popcorn.

Steve

[billbindc]

12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Some good stuff posted a couple of pages ago.  The short is Kadyrov's rule is that of a clan so one of his sons will take over and, likely, things will go on as they have been.  But a transition like this with so much stress and higher than usual stakes... we might need to get some popcorn.

Steve

The silovik state operates under a system of understandings. Those will have to be renegotiated as the old ones will go into the ground with Kadyrov. Putin will be forced to let someone else into his inner circle, competitive forces will be released within the Chechen system, etc. It will be yet another complication, yet another distraction and likely a further reduction in state capacity emanating from Putin's office. I don't expect something dramatic to change at first but more like increased systemic drag. 

[kimbosbread]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

Pet issue request, when the new modern game comes out, can we get one version of this tank with 105 mm it actually has, and one version with a breach loading 120mm mortar? Because I think the mortar version makes a ton more sense, and I am sure someone will volunteer to show me how wrong I am. But I woud really like to test the theory.

There should be the ability to offer turret options:

• 120mm breech loading mortar (which I absolutely think is the best option)
• 105mm gun
• 40mm bofors
• Brace of brimstones
• A bunch of mini lancets or fpv drone analogs

[Battlefront.com]

33 minutes ago, billbindc said:

The silovik state operates under a system of understandings. Those will have to be renegotiated as the old ones will go into the ground with Kadyrov. Putin will be forced to let someone else into his inner circle, competitive forces will be released within the Chechen system, etc. It will be yet another complication, yet another distraction and likely a further reduction in state capacity emanating from Putin's office. I don't expect something dramatic to change at first but more like increased systemic drag. 

I'm with you on this one.  I expect the negotiations will amount to many long days, heavy drinking, and unhealthy stress levels BUT they will appear to us to be relatively smooth. 

However, nothing is guaranteed and the overall surrounding circumstances are crappy enough that someone might make a play for more power or someone might be unwilling to give up something (usually two sides of the same coin, but not always).  If that happens then things could get messy, but since nobody probably wants things to be messy it likely won't be.  Even Prig didn't want things to be messy and only resorted to his march because he lost out at the negotiating table and had options to do something about it.  Ultimately not all that successfully

If we get any whiffs of things not being smooth we can presume things are really bad, because these sorts of negotiations are usually airtight closed off to the outside world.  Even Prig kept his big mouth shut about the negotiation process itself and we still haven't heard many credible details about what went on behind the scenes.

Steve

[L0ckAndL0ad]

On 9/10/2023 at 5:34 PM, Kinophile said:

2. They have the internet and, controlled as it us,  they can access BBC.com any time they want. They've had very wide access since D0.  

Sorry to reply so late to this, but I really wanted to point it out, because I personally adore BBC. BBC.com is blocked in Russia and in the occupied territories. Except the Russian BBC channel on Telegram that I personally follow, but that's just because they've given up trying to block Telegram That one is fast as a lightning and is easy to access, thankfully.

On 9/10/2023 at 1:38 PM, Astrophel said:

In 18 months of following this conflict closely I have yet to hear one mention of the BBC focussing in on discontent in russian provinces, supporting the occupied territories in ukraine, or increased investment of any kind.  Nor is there any attempt to communicate via new media channels.  

BBC posts in Russian language in Telegram very frequently on a wide range of topics and is covering all kind of things, and they're doing a very good job. If there's any one news source on this planet one should follow, that's BBC.

Edited September 17, 2023 by L0ckAndL0ad

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Various tidbits I can point out:

- There was a "flying wing" drone that fell within the city limits during the recent attack near Yevpatoriya. It looked undamaged (downed by EW?) and fell right next to the main office of RNCB bank (biggest bank in Crimea that uses old Privatbank infrastructure). The drone fell less than 1.5km away from where I was at the time.

- The morons cannot scale their production of propaganda BS school books. They've issues orders/laws that cannot be implemented, yet again. It is said that it will take years to print thier new "unitary" schoolbooks. Imagine them trying to switch their economy to the "war footing" as some want ;D That would be even funnier.

- There's a special, dedicated NDA they force upon people (first responders?) after missile/drone strikes that starts with words "becasue of the current geopolitical situation" that prevents them from talking about anything.

- The fuel prices continue to rise locally, and people are really noticing. There's quite a lot of rambling about it, and even some organized (and, strangely, authorised) street protests. Did not see much details yet about the latter.

[Kinophile]

2 hours ago, L0ckAndL0ad said:

Sorry to reply so late to this, but I really wanted to point it out, because I personally adore BBC. BBC.com is blocked in Russia and in the occupied territories. Except the Russian BBC channel on Telegram that I personally follow, but that's just because they've given up trying to block Telegram That one is fast as a lightning and is easy to access, thankfully.

BBC posts in Russian language in Telegram very frequently on a wide range of topics and is covering all kind of things, and they're doing a very good job. If there's any one news source on this planet one should follow, that's BBC.

Thanks for the correction! Even so,  I doubt one website will change centuries deep, generationally embedded cultural tropes. Russia gonna Russia. 

[holoween]

8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Every day forward this is less true than the day before.  With the next generation of UGVs, UAVs, and lighter manned systems there will come a point when it isn't true at all.

We constantly try to keep in mind lessons from Ukraine that might not be applicable going forward.  The Ukrainian and Russian reliance on tanks, today, is one of those things that I think is specific to this war.  The next war?  I don't see tanks being anything other than a liability (I am speaking strategically, operationally, as well as tactically).

Steve

I think youve misunderstood me.

So simple question is this a tank:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiesel_AWC

And currently the answer is a simple no. If it turns a corner and is suddenly faced with an MBT or IFV it will simply get destroyed.

But if you remove all heavier vehicles because they are too expensive it now can destroy whatever is around the corner. And at that point its a tank.

 

[LongLeftFlank]

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The short is Kadyrov's rule is that of a clan so one of his sons will take over and, likely, things will go on as they have been.  But a transition like this with so much stress and higher than usual stakes... we might need to get some popcorn.

Steve

yeah, hohols are trembling in fear right now.

 

[Yet]

18 hours ago, holoween said:

 

So is ukraine does everything right.

What im interested in is what exactly causes their attacks to fail or succeed and how does it do that so i can draw conclusions on what needs to be done to be successful.

As far as i see it, RU are holding the line with mines, trenches, mobiks, convicts, or central asian fortuneseekers that are so hopeless that they fall for any good story, kalashnikovs, a few drones and some D20s. 

All highly replacable. For RU its just about numbers. 

The Ukr challenge is now: can they remove defence and secure a position before the RU replacement are in -and at what costs. 

Of course is not great for RU to lose a sub or a S400, but lossing it isnt going to change the replacement race. 

they got to crack the nut of attacking quicker than RU can replace. Both as in breaching as in disrupting the replacement flow. 

@experts -am I right that this is now the main story? 

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, holoween said:

I think youve misunderstood me.

So simple question is this a tank:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiesel_AWC

And currently the answer is a simple no. If it turns a corner and is suddenly faced with an MBT or IFV it will simply get destroyed.

But if you remove all heavier vehicles because they are too expensive it now can destroy whatever is around the corner. And at that point its a tank.

 

This really makes no sense.  If a “tank” is simply the most lethal vehicle then right now an infantryman with an ATGM or artillery with PGM are “tanks”.

A tank provides a combination of three things: survivability, lethality and mobility.  They are all uniquely high but come at a high cost to produce and sustain in the field.  The core issue is that Survivability is pretty much in tatters in this war.  Tanks are highly visible and are being hunted into extinction.  Too many things can see and kill them or their support system to easily.  Mobility - see 1) minefields and 2) denial of the tank by long range systems that can see them and kill the at greater ranges than the tank can respond.  Lack of tank freedom of mobility is a freakin hallmark of this war.  Lethality - maybe the only thing the old girl has left but it is being replaced by precision artillery, missiles and UAS.

Dress is up however one likes.  Apologize for no air superiority all day long. Blame the Ukrainians and Russians for “not being combined armsie enough.” That equation up there is not going to suddenly swing back in favour of heavy expensive metal moving forward.  We may even see a major armour breakout in this war but that won’t validate their existence, it will be a swan song.

Finally from a strategic perspective other factors come into play but the biggest one is that tanks are just too damn heavy…blame gravity.  They are hard to move and mount.  They are very costly to support.  Problem now is that an opponent can move and mount the denial system for the tank much faster than we can mount and move heavy forces.  So What?  Every time we deploy the armoured fist somewhere, cheap and many lethal systems to counter it will have been there for weeks.  And the technology behind those system is going to be an extremely high priority because they can deny what is the core of our current western military ground force …they watched the Gulf War and Iraq 03 on tv same way we did.

So add it all up. Tactical, Operational and Strategic - the whole thing does not look good for the entire heavy system.  Lighter, faster, cheaper, deadlier and unmanned is a wave of change that no one is going to be able to stand in front of.  In my opinion we are watching the re-definition of “combined arms” unfold in front of us daily in Ukraine.  The re-design of what combat power means and warfare itself is going to be fundamentally changed.

[Haiduk]

The banner somewhere in occupied Kherson oblast like a good example of "Russian world" values.

Writing:

Kinder, Kuche, Kirсhe!

The sence and greatness of russian woman

I'm traditionalist, but this is fu...g "Russian orthodoxal sharia"

 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2023 by Haiduk

[Letter from Prague]

52 minutes ago, Yet said:

Of course is not great for RU to lose a sub or a S400, but lossing it isnt going to change the replacement race. 

Not sure about subs, but blowing up air defense with long-range weapons is going to make future blowing up much easier. I'm sure Russia has a lot of these systems, but they already have holes (see basic drones hitting Moscow) and the holes get bigger every time.

This is especially true for the actually good systems. Rando with a manpad or a Tunguska can defend from suicide drones, but you need somewhat fancy systems to defend against stealthy cruise missiles or ballistic missiles.

TL;DR: boom now means bigger boom later as long as the supply doesn't dry up.

7 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

I'm traditionalist, but this is fu...g "Russian orthodoxal sharia"

Lol, she even has a scarf.

Edited September 17, 2023 by Letter from Prague