How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[ArmouredTopHat]

In other news, the US navy madlads strapped this monster onto their Hornets. Im sure China might be sweating a little over this one. 

 

Edited Wednesday at 08:25 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[A Canadian Cat]

59 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

So what was the natural progress of the battleship using your logic?

Battleships were superseded in their role (Decisive battle) by other, more effective means. This has not happened to the tank for a variety of reasons. The two are simply not very comparable in terms of roles and usage, not to mention the adaptability difference

But many think it has though.

25 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

34 minutes ago, photon said:

Forgive the noobish question, but what is the role of tanks in the modern battlefield?

Mobile, direct firepower against a variety of ground targets,

FPV drones, precision artillery fire supported by drones accomplish the same thing. One is much smaller and harder to find plus there can be more of them. Artillery can be much further away and still precisely hit ground targets on call to the infantry the support.

 

25 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

and being able to do so quickly and effectively with its own optics and stabilisation

FPV drones can do that just as fast and with their own optics ans stabilization (not you said that was required but I don't think it is : - ) artillery is pretty damn fast now. Plus tanks have to stay quite far away now so are they really that fast. Not to mention their logistics tail is a log less efficent.

 

25 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

while also protected against a key range of threats.

FPV drones are projected by being small, their operators are protected by not being there at all. As for artillery they are much further away.

 

25 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

A key component of supporting infantry and other vehicles. 

Already covered.

Honestly I think this all sounds very much like the tanks' role is very much a rhyme of the battleships'.

[The_Capt]

28 minutes ago, Grey_Fox said:

Ah don't give me that. There's a difference between an army having less infantry than they think they might need, and a military being on the verge of not having any infantry at all.

Kofman's article gave examples of entire battalions that only had enough troops to crew the vehicles, and had zero dismounts. Other battalions demotorized in order to be able to provide at least some infantry presence.

So you are telling me an “zero infantry” force managed to push into another country on 5 separate operational axis, some corridors hundreds of kms long?  I am sure some Bns went in very light, maybe even tepid…but that only made things worse.  So you are saying every BTG had zero dismounts?  Even the lead ones?  Nor does this address the fundamental problem of trying to screen and clear at these ranges.

[ArmouredTopHat]

8 minutes ago, A Canadian Cat said:

FPV drones, precision artillery fire supported by drones accomplish the same thing. One is much smaller and harder to find plus there can be more of them. Artillery can be much further away and still precisely hit ground targets on call to the infantry the support.

Yet both combatants use and desire more tanks, so clearly they are doing something that drones cant do. 

As valuable as artillery and drones are, you still ultimately need some sort of vehicle that can push a front or be on the front at all. It needs to be survivable, it needs to be able to deliver firepower to facilitate both the attack and the defence. There are limitations to drones and artillery that can constraint them quite severely, things that the tank has no problem with. They still remain in my view a key element of a combined arms force, though its evident that design priorities need to change to better transition into the evolving battlespace. 

Edited Wednesday at 08:41 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[dan/california]

12 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

In other news, the US navy madlads strapped this monster onto their Hornets. Im sure China might be sweating a little over this one. 

 

This is an excellent development. Someone in the military industrial complex has their head on straight. So the unclassified range estimates on the SM-6 are anywhere from 150 to 350 or more miles. I realize anyone who knows cant say. But very theoretically what is the boost in range it gets when fired from 50,000 feet at mach 1.2? Or perhaps more relevantly for the Ukrainian environment, At an altitude of a couple hundred feet at mach .6. I am kind of bummed that the first public appearance of this did not involve the expolsive disassembly of  several SU-34s. But I guess the slow boil is still in effect.

[Grey_Fox]

4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So you are telling me an “zero infantry” force managed to push into another country on 5 separate operational axis, some corridors hundreds of kms long?  I am sure some Bns went in very light, maybe even tepid…but that only made things worse.  So you are saying every BTG had zero dismounts?  Even the lead ones?  Nor does this address the fundamental problem of trying to screen and clear at these ranges.

Read the article. That's exactly what happened. I don't know why you're skeptical - this is a well known fact.

Edited Wednesday at 08:43 PM by Grey_Fox

[The_Capt]

28 minutes ago, Grey_Fox said:

Apologies for the double quote, on mobile and the forum isn't conducive to longer posts.

You gave a strawman about how the Russians totally didn't forget how to do combined arms warfare for 6 weeks from February 2022. When confronted with an article about how the Russians couldn't do combined arms warfare in spring 2022, you've shifted the goalposts to talking about the summer of 2022.

How is that a straw man? It is your entire argument.  Your article was a single opinion - I just posted a UK Army analysis of the battles of North of Kyiv and both sides in this were short on infantry.  Russia went in with BTGs designed for fast shock action.  They went in all at once with aims to overwhelm the UA.  They had combined arms even if it was unbalanced.  In fact what you are beaking on about as “combined arms” is really defile drillers and trying to secure LOCs.  

Not does any of this negate the realities we saw later in the war.  When the RA suddenly had enough infantry, or combined arms they still could not effectively penetrate UA lines.  Lines that are manned at ridiculously low troops density.

[The_Capt]

Just now, Grey_Fox said:

Read the article. That's exactly what happened. 

You read mine first.

[Grey_Fox]

Just now, The_Capt said:

You read mine first.

You linked a wikipedia article of all things.

[A Canadian Cat]

1 minute ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Yet both combatants use and desire more tanks, so clearly they are doing something that drones cant do. 

Given the footage we have seen and very little of it is tank vs anything I'm not sure about this.

 

1 minute ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

As valuable as artillery and drones are, you still ultimately need some sort of vehicle that can push a front or be on the front at all. It needs to be survivable, it needs to be able to deliver firepower to facilitate both the attack and the defence. There are limitations to drones and artillery that can constraint them quite severely, things that the tank has no problem with. They still remain in my view a key element of a combined arms force, though its evident that design priorities need to change. 

My bold: but that is just not happening. Don't look at it form a "how we planned to fight" point of view. Look at it how the fight is actually being fought point of view.

On the RA side we see repeated attempts of armour supported or lead attacks just turning into a bunch of wrecks by artillery an FPV drones. On the AFU side we see armour pushes turned to shreds by helos at 10km out launching ATGMs. About the only thing that has worked is attrition from precision fires combined with wrecked logistics 10km back from the same followed by small bites taken by light infantry until the other side pulls back and regroups. Tanks just are not part of any success. At. All.

If tanks are not succeeding and other methods are (barely I admit) then it is correct to conclude that tanks are not as useful as we thought.

[The_Capt]

7 minutes ago, Grey_Fox said:

You linked a wikipedia article of all things.

You want more than wiki deep, you pay for it.

Wiki disagrees with Kofman on some accounts btw. I also posted the link to the UK Army thing on just how close a run thing this really was and how low on infantry the UA was as well.  You basically have a single article by Kofman and have declared as the universal truth because it fits your view.  I have heard Kofman in person and while I agree the RA was not well prepared for a long drawn out war, even he agrees that this was far closer run thing than we give credence too.  

Further Kofman cannot explain how the UA, also undermanned was able to stop the RA when they had a 12:1 force advantage North of Kyiv (from a RUSI report I have also posted).   More guns, more IFVs, more tanks, more air power, all the initiative and equal infantry - hell the UA didn’t even have time to lay mines fields. All this before most western aid even got into motion.  And what have you got?  “Not enough infantry”.  Toss in “mission command” and “NCO Corp” and you fit right into the choir.

Edited Wednesday at 08:51 PM by The_Capt

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Yet both combatants use and desire more tanks, so clearly they are doing something that drones cant do. 

As valuable as artillery and drones are, you still ultimately need some sort of vehicle that can push a front or be on the front at all. It needs to be survivable, it needs to be able to deliver firepower to facilitate both the attack and the defence. There are limitations to drones and artillery that can constraint them quite severely, things that the tank has no problem with. They still remain in my view a key element of a combined arms force, though its evident that design priorities need to change. 

Whatever happened in the spring of 2022, the anti armor environment has gotten a LOT worse during the course of this war. If the Ukrainians had had the current drone tech then, the Russian offensive would have dissolved in some unpleasant mix of acid and elemental fluorine. None of this new tech is going away. Before we spend tens of billions on a drone defense plan there has to be some real proof that it can beat both what is out there today, and what is very surely going to be out there soon. They FPV drones Ukraine is flying cost under, usually well under a thousand dollars, and are basically repurposed toys and agricultural stuff. What can someone do with a ground up design and a $5,000 dollar budget? If it takes ten or twenty $5,000 drones to kill a new thirty million dollar tank, that is still a heck of a deal for the side with the drones.

[Vanir Ausf B]

3 hours ago, kimbosbread said:

The basic question as always is “How do I defend or seize territory?”. Up to this point in history, the answer is “Infantry”.

The entire purpose of all the other weapons, communication and intelligence systems are to enable this holding or seizing of territory.

Exactly, particularly now that NATO has moved from deterrence by punishment to deterrence by denial.
 

Quote

 

If an APC means soldiers surive to seize territory, that’s great. However, what we are seeing is infantry walk on foot because mech near the front attracts drones like flies to a big juicy poo.

If you have something better to hold territory with, for example smart mines or air-dropped smart gun turrets, maybe you don’t need as much infantry?

 

Dismounted infantry works on defense, especially with the aid of fortifications, but I don't think you can solve for offense with infantry walking into battle.

[Battlefront.com]

9 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Yet both combatants use and desire more tanks, so clearly they are doing something that drones cant do.

This is forgetting that the Ukrainians have said that they are keeping all of their Western tanks off the battlefield most of the time for fear of losing them.  As such, I don't know that I've seen Ukraine thumping on the table for more tanks since last year.  Artillery, long range fires, and air defenses, on the other hand, they are.

Look, we know tanks are still a thing now.  Limited and totally not what they are supposed to be designed to do, but they are still useful.  But these are legacy systems that are already in place.  Pouring more money into tanks to attempt to keep them relevant for a tiny part of what they are supposed to do is a different matter.

Steve

[Grey_Fox]

3 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

All this before most western aid even got into motion.  And what have you got?  “Not enough infantry”.  

You gave out that it was ridiculous to think that the Russians forgot how to do combined arms warfare. I'm pointing out that a force that has a profound shortage of infantry is missing a fundamental component in combined arms warfare.

 

3 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

You want more than wiki deep, you pay for it.

I do, which is why I don't get it from wikipedia, and that's because...

 

3 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Wiki disagrees with Kofman on some accounts btw.

...I can edit the articles so it aligns with my facts.

Edited Wednesday at 08:54 PM by Grey_Fox

[Grey_Fox]

7 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

even he agrees that this was far closer run thing than we give credence too.  

Yes, the Russian disinfo campaign was good, nobody thought they were insane to try it. And yes, Hostomel was a very close run thing, and the actions of a handful of troops, along with Zelensky, an actor and comedian who turned out to have a backbone and didn't run at the first sign of trouble, probably did turn the tide and prevent something approaching a fait accompli in the early days.

Edited Wednesday at 08:58 PM by Grey_Fox

[dan/california]

https://www.reddit.com/r/DroneCombat/comments/1dudq6x/two_grenades_dropped_from_drone_help_russian/

A bad grenade drop, but a truly funny film clip. All I can think of is that these guys were faking so their own second line wouldn't shoot them.

 

Edited Wednesday at 09:22 PM by dan/california

[ArmouredTopHat]

9 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is forgetting that the Ukrainians have said that they are keeping all of their Western tanks off the battlefield most of the time for fear of losing them.  As such, I don't know that I've seen Ukraine thumping on the table for more tanks since last year.  Artillery, long range fires, and air defenses, on the other hand, they are.

Look, we know tanks are still a thing now.  Limited and totally not what they are supposed to be designed to do, but they are still useful.  But these are legacy systems that are already in place.  Pouring more money into tanks to attempt to keep them relevant for a tiny part of what they are supposed to do is a different matter.

This is primarily because Ukraine is on the defensive and actively seeking to preserve as much combat power as possible for the future. They have stated clearly that they will want to go on the offensive again when they can. This will involve tanks and vehicles in general. Walking into combat is perhaps even more perilous right now, why do you think we see rotations of units done via vehicles when possible? 

 

12 minutes ago, A Canadian Cat said:

On the RA side we see repeated attempts of armour supported or lead attacks just turning into a bunch of wrecks by artillery an FPV drones. On the AFU side we see armour pushes turned to shreds by helos at 10km out launching ATGMs. About the only thing that has worked is attrition from precision fires combined with wrecked logistics 10km back from the same followed by small bites taken by light infantry until the other side pulls back and regroups. Tanks just are not part of any success. At. All.

If tanks are not succeeding and other methods are (barely I admit) then it is correct to conclude that tanks are not as useful as we thought.

A costly as these attacks are, they do gain ground. As much as I hate to give the Russians a compliment, what else can they exactly do? If they walk in they will get bombed even more. We are seeing them try 'interesting' methods such as bikes yet they seem to do even more poorly. Even in the current environment we are seeing tanks being actively used. 

The attacks that seem to get somewhere do feature tanks, be it the monster turtle tank things that continue to disgust me to this day or at least a combination of regular tanks with the infantry carriers. The issue to me seems to be the scale of these attacks and that half the time they wander into presighted artillery and mines. There is a lot more going on here that tanks simply being useless. 

Edited Wednesday at 09:02 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

The question you should be asking yourself is after taking in all the above, is it worth it?

Argh.  Have you read anything I've written?  The central point I've been making, and you've been dodging, is that they are NOT worth it.  There are plenty of alternatives to get the same, or better, effective results on the battlefield without using a tank.  I've been over this ground so many times before and you just don't want to hear it.  The tank doesn't offer anything unique and increasingly what it does offer is narrowed down by the changes going on.  And by diverting limited resources to trying to shore up an already bad investment with yet more bad investments comes at the expense of coming up with something better than what the tank supposedly still doing on the battlefield.

Did you listen to the talk by Jack Watling?  I want you to be clear that I'm not pulling this stuff out of my arse.  There are people a lot smarter and more knowledgeable than us that are arguing that the tank (and other things) are out of place on the battlefield of tomorrow, if not today.

 

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

If the assumption is that tanks are now worthless. What serves as a mobile direct fire capability that militaries want instead? Lighter vehicles are even more in peril from a wide variety of threats, and UGVs remain a theoretical but still not fully practical solution. What is the alternative? Does this spread over to other vehicles on the line of contact as well? 

I'm done with this.  I've covered this many times already, before you and directly to you.  As you are doing with my arguments that the problems with the tank go way beyond anything that APS can solve, you just sidestep instead of engage.  This is pointless.

Steve

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Argh.  Have you read anything I've written?  The central point I've been making, and you've been dodging, is that they are NOT worth it.  There are plenty of alternatives to get the same, or better, effective results on the battlefield without using a tank.  I've been over this ground so many times before and you just don't want to hear it.  The tank doesn't offer anything unique and increasingly what it does offer is narrowed down by the changes going on.  And by diverting limited resources to trying to shore up an already bad investment with yet more bad investments comes at the expense of coming up with something better than what the tank supposedly still doing on the battlefield.

Did you listen to the talk by Jack Watling?  I want you to be clear that I'm not pulling this stuff out of my arse.  There are people a lot smarter and more knowledgeable than us that are arguing that the tank (and other things) are out of place on the battlefield of tomorrow, if not today.

 

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

If the assumption is that tanks are now worthless. What serves as a mobile direct fire capability that militaries want instead? Lighter vehicles are even more in peril from a wide variety of threats, and UGVs remain a theoretical but still not fully practical solution. What is the alternative? Does this spread over to other vehicles on the line of contact as well? 

I'm done with this.  I've covered this many times already, before you and directly to you.  As you are doing with my arguments that the problems with the tank go way beyond anything that APS can solve, you just sidestep instead of engage.  This is pointless.

Steve

You are the one winding yourself into knots about this to be honest. I'm simply providing a different opinion based on what is currently happening as of this moment. I am also juggling multiple different peoples posts and trying to respond to them when I can. Its a little stacked right now.

You make some very good points, I dont deny that. I just think your conclusion is premature, and seemingly most militaries also think so given their interest in both more tanks and systems like APS. I do think vehicle roles might need a look at with the evolving battlefield, but at the same time I am not seeing a lot of practical alternatives to replace a tanks role. You are welcome to suggest something that does replace a tanks role in combat, but everyone including the Ukrainians have been saying that drones and artillery are not the end all be all. 

Happy to leave it there. 

Edited Wednesday at 09:10 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[Battlefront.com]

12 minutes ago, Grey_Fox said:

You gave out that it was ridiculous to think that the Russians forgot how to do combined arms warfare. I'm pointing out that a force that has a profound shortage of infantry is missing a fundamental component in combined arms warfare.

You guys are talking right past each other.  I don't think anybody disputes that Russia was short of dismounts.  It was very, very, very clear to us as this war unfolded that they tried the equivalent of a Command & Conquer "tank rush". 

The point that The_Capt is making is that the deficiencies in dismounts wasn't the deciding factor.  They could have probably doubled their infantry and it likely wouldn't have changed the outcome.  That is because it would still be a drop in the bucket for how much infantry was required for an operation of this scale.

This particular point got raised in relation to keeping LOCs free of bandits and to have some sort of bubble around the armored forces as they advanced.  The point being that the amount of infantry that would be required to effectively do that was beyond any nation's capabilities.  Too much volume to cover against too many weapons that can reach out too far guided by eyes that can see everything.

I really don't think that's in dispute, is it?

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

You are the one winding yourself into knots about this to be honest.

Because you keep making the same arguments as if I haven't already addressed your points.  It's especially frustrating because you're bringing nothing new to this debate that I haven't seen in previous debates.  If you were pushing into some new territory and taking into account the counter points I've been raising, that would be an entirely different discussion.

Case in point... I've already said, many times, what can replace whatever minimal role MBTs still have on the battlefield.  Some combo of UGVs and something more along the lines of an IFV.  And yet you seem to think I haven't.  Repeatedly.  Done so.

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Because you keep making the same arguments as if I haven't already addressed your points.  It's especially frustrating because you're bringing nothing new to this debate that I haven't seen in previous debates.  If you were pushing into some new territory and taking into account the counter points I've been raising, that would be an entirely different discussion.

Case in point... I've already said, many times, what can replace whatever minimal role MBTs still have on the battlefield.  Some combo of UGVs and something more along the lines of an IFV.  And yet you seem to think I haven't.  Repeatedly.  Done so

And in turn I told you that we are very much at the start of UGVs for combat use and there there are some real limitations to those vehicles that might explain why they have remained very much experimental until now. Ergo until they prove themselves more there is no real role replacement for tanks at least that exists, at least for something that can deliver that level of firepower and protection. 

I apologise if you feel like your spinning the same yarn here, I am still new here despite my lurking and I am simply giving you my thoughts on the subject. I'm no expert on the matter, but I do look closely into what militaries are procuring. I feel arm chairing it only gets you so far. 

I also feel that I do at least bring some new points to the table such as pointing out the active use of an APS in combat that did not exist prior to previous talks on the matter. But again if you feel like your going in circles then you should stop. 

Edited Wednesday at 09:21 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/07/02/world/gps-threats.html

The American GPS network that was once the gold standard is at risk of becoming a relic as Chinese, Russian and European systems modernize.

 

We need to start work on a next gen system. That next gen system should include a plan for putting a up a whole new constellation in a week in war time conditions, and may doing that over and over again. The article also discusses ground based augment that the Chinese are apparently working on. 

[cesmonkey]

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3827072/biden-administration-announces-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/
 

Quote

The capabilities in the PDA package include:

1. Missiles for HAWK air defense systems;
2. Ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS);
3. 155mm and 105mm artillery rounds;
4. 81mm mortar rounds;
5. Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided (TOW) missiles;
6. Javelin and AT-4 anti-armor systems;
7. Small arms ammunition and grenades;
8. Demolitions equipment and munitions;
9. Tactical vehicles to tow and haul equipment;
10. Tactical air navigation systems and aircraft support equipment; and,
11. Spare parts, maintenance, and other field and ancillary equipment.