How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I do try to be pragmatic about these things. I am happy to concede that tanks originally built in the cold war period are no longer entirely fit for purpose as we see, at least in this sort of environment. In the same way a tank from 1939 was no longer fit for the battlefield in 1945. I do not think tanks as a concept are dead, but its clear major design changes are required. 

There needs to be a long hard think about vehicle protection and countermeasures overall for future design to any vehicle operating within the battlespace where FPV drones are prevalent. 
 

I expect to see a major shift towards these things being on the battlefield in far greater numbers. 

The “tank ain’t dead” crowd is investing a lot on that gun system. Videos keep getting pushed on it.

My thinking is that if a land unit is detected and fixed, and next-gen strike UAS get within range of that big gun, the unit is already dead. Point defence is a last desperate shield and blasting away at the sky is a sure way to get lit up by a bunch of other stuff. In fact any land unit/formation that gets spotted will likely be on the receiving end of a lot more than UAS.  It is the combination of ISR and those strike systems that render heavy/mech as a niche capability moving forward.  

Or we could layer more and more gear onto increasingly expensive systems in some hope that they can deliver manoeuvre. Time will tell.

[ArmouredTopHat]

14 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The “tank ain’t dead” crowd is investing a lot on that gun system. Videos keep getting pushed on it.

My thinking is that if a land unit is detected and fixed, and next-gen strike UAS get within range of that big gun, the unit is already dead. Point defence is a last desperate shield and blasting away at the sky is a sure way to get lit up by a bunch of other stuff. In fact any land unit/formation that gets spotted will likely be on the receiving end of a lot more than UAS.  It is the combination of ISR and those strike systems that render heavy/mech as a niche capability moving forward.  

Or we could layer more and more gear onto increasingly expensive systems in some hope that they can deliver manoeuvre. Time will tell.

Its a good example of a system that was in development pre war that could be used in a counter drone role. Ill be more curious of specific designs made from the start to combat drones and how they might be integrated into a fighting force. As with everything any countermeasure is going to involve layers of defence. Its unlikely people are going to rely on a single platform at this point given the difficult battlefield conditions that have been set. Skyranger is a good capable system but its not a universal panacea by any means, just a simple example of what something approaching a dedicated counter drone vehicle could look like. 

Investment into counter observation drone measures for instance will allow vehicles more leeway to move around to perform their functions. A lot of drone counters will likely feature drones themselves as well, at least going by what the UA are doing with fpvs vs Orlans. I feel constraining recon capability is the first step towards granting vehicles more freedom of movement and this is something that is only just now being seriously looked at, at least in terms of massed hard kill capability.

Edited Tuesday at 07:30 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[Carolus]

Russian ammunition depot attacked with 2 drones instead of missiles. Sounds of secondary explosions almost like in the good old GMLRS days of 2022.

[TheVulture]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

200 a month?!  That is over 6 Bns...a month.  Looking like around a 35% Pk rate, better if one factors abandoned.

I hope e.g. the British army with its 200 challenger 2 tanks - soon to become a lower number of challenger 3 - is paying attention. A tank force that is large enough to be expensive but too small to be effective after a few weeks of combat seems like the worst of all worlds.

The tank may or may not be obsolete,  but an independent  tank force of that size might well be. 

I suppose in their defence,  it's not a land force that is supposed to operate alone in a high intensity environment: the UK armed forces are specifically designed to operate as part of a larger NATO force.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I feel constraining recon capability is the first step towards granting vehicles more freedom of movement and this is something that is only just now being seriously looked at, at least in terms of massed hard kill capability.

Considering that ISR is from the ground to space, a web of sensors that can be put on everything and integrated by AI - I do not know what counter-observation even looks like moving forward.  The development of sensors in miniaturization, costs and capability has been astounding over the last 20 years and shows no evidence of slowing down.  I think trying to blind or even deceive is going to get much harder moving forward. Trying to hide tons of steel on the battlefields of 2030 and beyond looks like a pipe dream to me.

We have this war to draw observations from, and those observations are becoming undeniable.  Hopes at somehow countering ubiquitous ISR, cheap precision strike and unmanned systems of all types, really feel like the dubious concept at this point, not the other way around.  I would have to see some decent evidence that heavy steel has a future - either on operations or in training/experimentation. And there is really none to speak of.

More bluntly put: the onus was on the “anti-tank” side to “prove it”, I argue the shoe is now on the other foot - prove that tank/mech has a future.  It requires proof beyond untested or drawing board technologies.  Proof beyond “well here is what we used to do with it.”  

When we started this debate awhile back you noted, correctly, that we lacked hard data on what was actually happening with respect to tanks and FPVs.  More data continues to emerge to support the idea that armor and mechanized are being stopped cold by cheap COTS systems with RPGs gun-taped to them.  And this is not at isolated tactical levels, it appears to be an operational reality.  So we can safely agree that Cold War era tanks and mech are obsolete in this environment to a large extent. Now in order to prove that post-Cold War mech and armor (which is frankly untrue as the RA is fielding post Cold War equipment) has a future we need positive proof of this, not an assumption that needs to be disproven.

If we are lucky we may see proof in this war; however, that appears to be less likely.  So we are going to need more than industry sales videos, we are going to need actual evidence that mech/heavy will work in a fully illuminated, long range precision strike environment.  Or at least can work with enough consistency to warrant investment.  Otherwise we are really being asked to take it on “faith.”

[The_Capt]

27 minutes ago, TheVulture said:

I hope e.g. the British army with its 200 challenger 2 tanks - soon to become a lower number of challenger 3 - is paying attention. A tank force that is large enough to be expensive but too small to be effective after a few weeks of combat seems like the worst of all worlds.

The tank may or may not be obsolete,  but an independent  tank force of that size might well be. 

I suppose in their defence,  it's not a land force that is supposed to operate alone in a high intensity environment: the UK armed forces are specifically designed to operate as part of a larger NATO force.

I do not think there are enough tanks in NATO to keep up. The US has approx 4500 M1s (of all types), about half are in storage and are older.  Russia has lost over 3000 tanks in this war, that we can confirm. So what?  The US would be pressed in this war to keep it head above water on MBTs, even with increased production:

https://en.defence-ua.com/industries/us_made_75_m1_abrams_per_month_in_the_1980s_now_12_is_the_limit-8621.html

MBTs have become as difficult to manufacture as fighter aircraft, costing upwards of $25m a pop. “Cheap many” has clearly demonstrated a level of superiority in a long term high intensity war, at least on defence.  I think we need to invest heavily in “cheap-many” of our own.

[Vanir Ausf B]

3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I do try to be pragmatic about these things. I am happy to concede that tanks originally built in the cold war period are no longer entirely fit for purpose as we see, at least in this sort of environment. In the same way a tank from 1939 was no longer fit for the battlefield in 1945. I do not think tanks as a concept are dead, but its clear major design changes are required. 

There needs to be a long hard think about vehicle protection and countermeasures overall for future design to any vehicle operating within the battlespace where FPV drones are prevalent. 

I expect to see a major shift towards these things being on the battlefield in far greater numbers. 

If the tank as we know it is dead it's not because of vulnerability. It will be because the job of killing other tanks and supporting infantry can be done more efficiently by other platforms.

Whether or not the tank is dead or should be dead there seems to be no debate that IFVs and APCs are not dead, which means they have to be protected. I could see a future in which the tank evolves into a dedicated anti-drone platform. I also think IFVs and APCs will continue their evolution into being tanks with passengers.

The definition of what is a tank may change but tanks aren't going anywhere in the foreseeable future because nobody is going to design an army in which soldiers walk into battle.

[ArmouredTopHat]

30 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Now in order to prove that post-Cold War mech and armor (which is frankly untrue as the RA is fielding post Cold War equipment) has a future we need positive proof of this, not an assumption that needs to be disproven.

All the tanks featured in the war are either cold war era tanks or tanks derived from those platforms that have been since upgraded, with said upgrades having very little in the way of any consideration made to protection against drones. 

The closest thing we have is the handful of Strv122s in service, which did feature upgrades to top protection in particular that the UA tankers have said has been invaluable in the drone heavy environment. (The original upgrades were for top protection munitions, so this is not even a purpose upgrade) There is simply nothing in service right now that is designed to withstand FPV attack outside of ad-hoc solutions. This is why I said it might be premature to announce the tank / vehicles in general are dead on arrival. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/28/ukraine-war-tank-drones-weapons-army-russian/

Closest thing to a source I could find, but I do recall an interview somewhere where the crews on the 122s praised how resilient the vehicle was against drones in particular thanks to that little bit of extra armour on the top. 

Either way the point is that clearly much like any piece of equipment on the battlefield, the tank needs to evolve further, especially with regards to protection in order to remain relevant on the battlefield. Clearly at minimum all around protection needs to be improved (Presumably at the cost of a reduced emphasis on frontal protection from kinetics)

Edited Tuesday at 09:23 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[Battlefront.com]

7 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I also find the comment about better Russian soldiers on the front curious as well. I view it as the Russians running low on the storm Z units and actually having to use their 'proper' troops to man the front now, at least more overall. 

We have seen anecdotal comments like this since the start of the war.  VDV and Spetsnaz units, while not being 1/4 as awesome as all those high kicks and boards smashed over chests would suggest, were definitely noticeably better than the average Russian unit.  And if a so-so Ukrainian unit came up against them, then it was quite possible that they fought relatively better compared to the Ukrainians doing the reporting.

That said, I do think that we're seeing signs that the Russians have run out of excess manpower.  We've not seen a full on large scale assault (and subsequent slaughter) for a couple of weeks now.  This after near ceaseless examples throughout the Winter and into the Spring.  Which means I agree that it's probable that Darwinian battlefield factors mean that there's a lot of experienced Russians on the battlefield now compared to even a few months ago.

Steve

[dan/california]

5 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I do try to be pragmatic about these things. I am happy to concede that tanks originally built in the cold war period are no longer entirely fit for purpose as we see, at least in this sort of environment. In the same way a tank from 1939 was no longer fit for the battlefield in 1945. I do not think tanks as a concept are dead, but its clear major design changes are required. 

There needs to be a long hard think about vehicle protection and countermeasures overall for future design to any vehicle operating within the battlespace where FPV drones are prevalent. 
 

I expect to see a major shift towards these things being on the battlefield in far greater numbers. 

What is the time and cost for five thousand of them. Because you need one of them for every platoon in in NATO. That very much includes rear area, and supply units.

[ArmouredTopHat]

9 minutes ago, dan/california said:

What is the time and cost for five thousand of them. Because you need one of them for every platoon in in NATO. That very much includes rear area, and supply units.

Much like how point defence is a scaled factor on ships, we can expect similar approaches on land. Majority of counter FPV will probably be done by drone, with hard kill PD that's tied to APS systems on the heavier / more important vehicles. Anything cheaper I assume is likely to be a UGV and therefore not as 'important' to protect to the same degree, or at least be replaceable. 

I'm just spit balling here, I'm not going to be presumptuous and predict the next 50 years of modern warfare. 

[dan/california]

3 hours ago, Carolus said:

Russian ammunition depot attacked with 2 drones instead of missiles. Sounds of secondary explosions almost like in the good old GMLRS days of 2022.

While we are discussing things that we are not remotely ready for, what is to stop a massive attack by Shaheed type drones launched from a freighter of the East coast of the U.S.,? Or the Brussels, Antwerp, Hamburg conglomeration. I mean Hezbollah could probably do that. North Korea could certainly do it. Never mind one of the major players. 

We need to red team a LOT of things like that, and actually do something about the results. Or someone is going to do it for us, with live ammo. They wouldn't dare was mortally wounded on 9/11, and certainly dead and buried after the war in Ukraine and Oct 7th.

 

Edited Tuesday at 11:25 PM by dan/california

[dan/california]

4 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Much like how point defence is a scaled factor on ships, we can expect similar approaches on land. Majority of counter FPV will probably be done by drone, with hard kill PD that's tied to APS systems on the heavier / more important vehicles. Anything cheaper I assume is likely to be a UGV and therefore not as 'important' to protect to the same degree, or at least be replaceable. 

I'm just spit balling here, I'm not going to be presumptuous and predict the next 50 years of modern warfare. 

The Pentagon has to make a best guess at least ten years out, though, just because of the procurement cycle.

[cesmonkey]

 

[FancyCat]

 

Quote

1/ Ukrainian Yak-52 piston trainer aircraft with two crew-members on board in the camera lens of a Russian ZALA Zala 421-16E(-series) UAV. In April, reports appeared that the Ukrainians are using Yak-52s for drone hunting, with crew-members carrying automatic weapons.

2/ A photo of the kill markings of a Ukrainian Yak-52 piston trainer aircraft, employed for drone hunting. The crew claimed the downing of at least two ZALA 421-16E-series and six Orlan-10/30 reconnaissance UAVs. Not sure what's the exact meaning of a crossed out Mohajer-6 and Orlan-10/30 UAV, as well as the symbols of a crane and thunderstorm below.

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=25980846541559054&set=a.868344163235972

3/ "P.S: As said in the comments, the bird and cloud at the bottom right are marking drones downed as a result of a collision with a bird and exposure to weather, which was witnessed by the aircraft crew."

 

[dan/california]

15 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

 

 

Surely somebody can work out the brackets and wiring to hang gun pod on this thing

 

Quote

https://dillonaero.com/gun-pod-system/

You could put this same system on a lot of more or less civilian designs for drone hunting, too. Especially deeper into Ukrainian territory

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 11:26 PM by dan/california

[MikeyD]

4 hours ago, TheVulture said:

I hope e.g. the British army with its 200 challenger 2 tanks - soon to become a lower number of challenger 3 - is paying attention.

Well, the British army specifically benefits from having their own in-house Combat Mission title to play with. One assumes that after endlessly wargaming out tanks vs drones, ECM vs drones, drones vs dispersed infantry (and whatever else they may have up their sleeve) that they will come to some insightful conclusions .

[chris talpas]

28 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Well, the British army specifically benefits from having their own in-house Combat Mission title to play with. One assumes that after endlessly wargaming out tanks vs drones, ECM vs drones, drones vs dispersed infantry (and whatever else they may have up their sleeve) that they will come to some insightful conclusions .

Perhaps the support of that endeavour is what is keeping Charles busy since we’ve not yet seen the release of Combat Mission Space Lobsters.

[cesmonkey]

An interesting discussion that leaves me kind of depresses about Ukraine's prospects:

 

[cesmonkey]

Fighterbomber on the recent "downing" of a US Global Hawk over the Black Sea:
https://t.me/fighter_bomber/17156
 

Quote

Actually, the whole story about Global Hawk and MiG-31 is on video, to which I can only add that there were two passes. At different speeds. And everything worked out only on the second try, when we accelerated to 2.3M.
This is the first such case in the history of aviation, as far as I know. At such altitudes and speeds, no one, no one, has ever "met".
MiG-31 was chosen as the only aircraft that can perform this task from the entire fleet in service with the Aerospace Forces at such an altitude.
The pilot and navigator of MiG-31 790 IAP 105 Garden received the "Order of Courage".

The crews are preparing for new "meetings".

 

[Letter from Prague]

It would be hilarious to mount AMRAAM on the next Global Hawk.

[Carolus]

Bradley chaingun vs Russian drone.

Edited Wednesday at 09:18 AM by Carolus
broken link

[cesmonkey]

Czech Prime Minister:

 

[cesmonkey]

Russian telegrammer Two Majors regarding handling of wounded Russian soldiers:
https://t.me/dva_majors/46164
 

Quote

Zaporozhye Front, they write to us:

🖋Hello, I am writing from the Zaporozhye direction.

Often we have to help the guys as part of evacuation groups, we pull out 300 and, if possible, 200.

About 80% of the wounded that we evacuated were shrapnel wounds from enemy artillery and mortar fire, from anti-personnel mines and tripwires.

So, first , 80% of those we saved had at best two Esmarch tourniquets, which is why they dripped blood and became heavy, and most likely ended up with limb amputation.

An Esmarch tourniquet or a turnstile on a carbine, tied to armor or a machine gun with millions of knots, simply blows my mind.

Secondly , 90% do not know how to use first aid kits, apply a bandage, or pack wounds. In all this time, there were only two cases when a fighter provided himself with high-quality first aid.

Third , evacuation groups are formed from among volunteers and those most savvy in takmed, and, accordingly, stretchers, medicines, tourniquets, tourniquets, mobile electronic warfare on the back and cloaks from thermal imagers are looked for and obtained with our own resources and money. In addition to this, we carry out our regular duties.

Fourth , we can wait a long time for evacuation from our positions, with such activity of FPV drones; evacuation is often carried out at night and not every day. Classes on takmed are held in any training, at every combat coordination, and in addition to this, instructors come directly to the units, but for some reason they hammer a huge bolt on this. To everyone who says that they give out bad first aid kits and so on: everyone had time to prepare .

I ask you to make this problem public, everyone’s relatives are waiting for them at home after the victory, don’t repeat the mistakes of your comrades, take care of yourself and don’t endanger the lives of others because of your indifference and stupidity.

 

[The_Capt]

16 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

All the tanks featured in the war are either cold war era tanks or tanks derived from those platforms that have been since upgraded, with said upgrades having very little in the way of any consideration made to protection against drones. 

The closest thing we have is the handful of Strv122s in service, which did feature upgrades to top protection in particular that the UA tankers have said has been invaluable in the drone heavy environment. (The original upgrades were for top protection munitions, so this is not even a purpose upgrade) There is simply nothing in service right now that is designed to withstand FPV attack outside of ad-hoc solutions. This is why I said it might be premature to announce the tank / vehicles in general are dead on arrival. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/28/ukraine-war-tank-drones-weapons-army-russian/

Closest thing to a source I could find, but I do recall an interview somewhere where the crews on the 122s praised how resilient the vehicle was against drones in particular thanks to that little bit of extra armour on the top. 

Either way the point is that clearly much like any piece of equipment on the battlefield, the tank needs to evolve further, especially with regards to protection in order to remain relevant on the battlefield. Clearly at minimum all around protection needs to be improved (Presumably at the cost of a reduced emphasis on frontal protection from kinetics)

The article, like most “tank is still alive” counter arguments, misses the point.  Once again it focuses on FPVs and strike drones as the “problem” and sole reason why the tank is threatened.  This is incorrect and poor analysis.  Further, it is not only the tank, it is the entire mechanized concept that is threatened.  The last time the tank dominated a battlefield in any meaningful way was in 1991.  In the following 33 years (a full 1/3 of the articles “century of domination”) the tank was a large vulnerable direct fire support platform in small wars, and did not provide any decisive advantage. This reality is demonstrated today in Gaza, as a tank specifically designed for urban warfare has not driven an insurgency/terrorist group into the sea…and never will.

So what we do know is that tanks and mech still worked in 1991.  Of course back in the Persian Gulf the deterministic factor was more likely air supremacy, which did far more killing than direct tank engagements. Most of it before tank/mech forces arrived. I have posted more than one source that cites the Persian Gulf as a false positive for mechanized forces.  Now before the Persian Gulf…well we are back to the Iran-Iraq War and Arab Israeli wars, which did see versions of western mechanized doctrine but warped for various reasons (training, C2 doctrine, resources).  We saw some lessons those wars but they were not full demonstration of western concepts.  Afghanistan 80’s, Falklands, Vietnam and even Korea were not good examples of western armor doctrine either.  In fact the last real demonstration of mechanized combat was WW2.  The very idea that the tank “dominates” anything really hangs on that WW2 experience…which was 80 years ago.

At best, Ukraine is the first time in over 33 years that a high intensity peer conflict with mechanized forces has been fought.  At worst, it is the first time in 80 years since mechanized warfare has been tested.  So the very idea that the “tank lives” is already built on some pretty long assumptions.  The main argument I have heard is “well we kept making and using them”.  That, is not proof of anything based on the history of human warfare.

Now, what is pushing the tank and mechanized doctrine to the margin? C4ISR and precision long range weapons - of which FPVs are but one system.  The “tank lives” side keeps trying to somehow prove that all will be well if we could only get rid of those pesky FPVs.  In reality, UAS could be pushed back into an ISR and comms role and the effects on the battlefield would be just as devastating to mechanized.  Until tanks can bend light and other EM and sound emissions, ISR has rendered terrain transparent. Once a thing can be seen at 20-40kms it will be engaged by a myriad of long range precision strike systems. 

So what?  Well it is not a question of “tank or no tank’, it is a question of the nature of military mass in land warfare.  Centralized hard mobile mass, the foundation of western manoeuvre doctrine, is threatened.  Its very existence is in doubt, with very little proof of continued relevance.  Dispersed decentralized more mobile mass appears to stand a better chance.  Take the tank and mechanized idea and break it up into smaller, cheaper and more distributed elements that can hit everywhere all at once.  This was impossible before due to C2 and span of human control; communications and AI/processing has made it not only possible but likely inevitable.

So people can keep rolling out videos of the SkyRanger and articles by invested tank bloggers, it does not address the elephant in the room.  One I have suspected since the start of this thing: this is not about a platform, it is about the nature of mass in land warfare.  It has not made sense by old metrics for this entire war and I think we are finally beginning to understand why.

 

Edited Wednesday at 01:26 PM by The_Capt