How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Vanir Ausf B]

45 minutes ago, Kraft said:

Not in terms of roi but some things an FPV crew cant do yet. These capabilities are not developed well enough. For example stopping a larger assault with quality EW dead in its track, at this time they are unable to mobilize enough firepower to deal with dozens of vegicles and prevent breaches,  troops unloading and storming trenches often enough for these vehicles still to play a vital role in key areas.

Yes, this is a problem in the Donbas.

“And our problem is the same: we don’t have infantry, we don’t have enough artillery or shells. We don’t have enough drones.

The enemy has deployed powerful electronic warfare units so we sometimes have to launch 10, 12, 15 just to destroy one tank. If one of them was lucky enough to find the first EW vehicle, we could take out the rest."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/08/31/master-stroke-or-folly-ukraine-could-pay-high-price-kursk/

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Don't yuk it up too hard.

Well, I yuck it up when it's Russian.  When it's Ukrainian I get sad.  I'm still scarred watching a Ukrainian BMP-2 back over crawling wounded soldiers.

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

https://armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/army-news-2024/breaking-news-netherlands-to-announce-creation-of-new-tank-battalion-with-50-leopard-2a8-tanks

+1 nation that decided to invest in tanks again after previously discarding them (13 years ago)

Edited September 5 by ArmouredTopHat

[Ultradave]

8 hours ago, billbindc said:

There is one guy I'm pretty sure is going down, however: 

 

Oh, boo-hoo for Ritter. 

That's it. That's my contribution for today. I'm sure we'll all be shedding a few tears over  toasting this news.

Dave

[acrashb]

Belarus is becoming uppity:

 

https://kyivindependent.com/belarus-allegedly-downs-russian-2-drones-over-countrys-airspace-for-first-time-monitoring-group-reports/

[Joe982]

11 hours ago, akd said:

On the off chance this is a serious question:

 

Thank you. Now I know the answer.

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

https://armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/army-news-2024/breaking-news-netherlands-to-announce-creation-of-new-tank-battalion-with-50-leopard-2a8-tanks

+1 nation that decided to invest in tanks again after previously discarding them (13 years ago)

-1 nation that is paying attention to where warfare is headed

Seriously... getting rid of and reacquiring tanks is all about politics. 

I think their decision to get rid 13 years ago was a mistake because at the time they already had them in hand (huge sunk costs lost), there was NO substitute for their removal, and all it did was cost shift responsibilities onto their allied partners.

I think their decision to reacquire them now is a mistake because they now have to retool everything to accommodate a platform that has very limited utility in the future.  50 tanks is, uhm, like a month's supply in the sort of war they are still useful for.  There are smarter things for a small nation to do with their limited resources.

Steve

[Carolus]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

There are smarter things for a small nation to do with their limited resources.

Steve

For the same cost they could have a formidable integrated drone force (bomb dropping, FPV, remote mining, drone interceptors, laser guiding, and apparently rocket und MG firing from any angle, and apparently fricking flamethrowers now that fit through any window). That and EW will allow smaller nations to eat bigger nations in the field, no matter how many tanks the other side has. 

Edited September 6 by Carolus

[Battlefront.com]

11 minutes ago, Carolus said:

For the same cost they could have a formidable integrated drone force (bomb dropping, FPV, remote mining, drone interceptors, laser guiding, and apparently rocket und MG firing from any angle, and apparently fricking flamethrowers now that fit through any window). That and EW will allow smaller nations to eat bigger nations in the field, no matter how many tanks the other side has. 

For the same cost (including rebuilding an entire tank program) I think each individual rifleman could have their own CV-90.

Seriously, though, if I were them I'd invest a smaller amount of the total allocated for tanks and plow it into redundant CV-90s or some other top notch IFV.  Because they will lose a lot of them in the sort of war they were thinking about using tanks for.  A lot.  So they couldn't possibly purchase enough of those and they are so much more useful than an MBT even in this current war.

Steve

[Butschi]

2 hours ago, Carolus said:

For the same cost they could have a formidable integrated drone force (bomb dropping, FPV, remote mining, drone interceptors, laser guiding, and apparently rocket und MG firing from any angle, and apparently fricking flamethrowers now that fit through any window). That and EW will allow smaller nations to eat bigger nations in the field, no matter how many tanks the other side has. 

No matter what their reason to invest into tanks is and whether or not this is a good decision, buying a drone fleet now would only make sense if the Netherlands foresee fighting a war in the very near future.

Given the current rate of evolution in drones, everything you buy now is more or less certain to be obsolete soon. We have discussed all this. E.g. autonomous drones will completely outclass remote controlled drones, not least because they are immune to EW.

[Carolus]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

No matter what their reason to invest into tanks is and whether or not this is a good decision, buying a drone fleet now would only make sense if the Netherlands foresee fighting a war in the very near future.

That's true. But when is the time for a country to expect a war in the near future? How would the world have to look like?

*looks at the Baltics*

I agree that a war involving the Netherlands is not all that likely, all things considered.

What is a good investment right now? 

Research into EW? Development of autonomous drones? Training of existing forces? Building the structure for future mobilisation? Drone dodging skateboarding courses? Or simply filling up ammo depots?

The Netherlands seem to be going with F-35s, which are excellent birds in all regards of technology but need a massive support structure and training of personnel in order to be able to use them to their full potential.

But if you can use that full potential, you gain a massive advantage, almost guaranteed air superiority.

Maybe they should focus on wings instead of treads.

Edited September 6 by Carolus

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

No matter what their reason to invest into tanks is and whether or not this is a good decision, buying a drone fleet now would only make sense if the Netherlands foresee fighting a war in the very near future.

Given the current rate of evolution in drones, everything you buy now is more or less certain to be obsolete soon. We have discussed all this. E.g. autonomous drones will completely outclass remote controlled drones, not least because they are immune to EW.

The point of investment in unmanned systems is not the platforms at this point, it is the expertise. Like any other new technology in warfare it takes a lot of time and effort to build up the doctrine, tactics and training required to employ it. That expertise is key to being able to keep up with wherever that technology goes.

Right now the global leader in unmanned system in warfare is Ukraine. Followed closely by Russia.

[holoween]

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

-1 nation that is paying attention to where warfare is headed

Seriously... getting rid of and reacquiring tanks is all about politics. 

I think their decision to get rid 13 years ago was a mistake because at the time they already had them in hand (huge sunk costs lost), there was NO substitute for their removal, and all it did was cost shift responsibilities onto their allied partners.

I think their decision to reacquire them now is a mistake because they now have to retool everything to accommodate a platform that has very limited utility in the future.  50 tanks is, uhm, like a month's supply in the sort of war they are still useful for.  There are smarter things for a small nation to do with their limited resources.

Steve

They didnt get rid of their tanks at least not entirely. They still have a tank company under a german tank battalion. And they are purchasing an existing in production tank.

[ArmouredTopHat]

4 hours ago, Carolus said:

For the same cost they could have a formidable integrated drone force (bomb dropping, FPV, remote mining, drone interceptors, laser guiding, and apparently rocket und MG firing from any angle, and apparently fricking flamethrowers now that fit through any window). That and EW will allow smaller nations to eat bigger nations in the field, no matter how many tanks the other side has. 

Nothing is stopping them from doing so.

Evidently they have a desire to increase their mobile firepower and tanks are the answer for that. I'm not going to complain that NATO is getting more reactive firepower for any potential brigades involved in a conflict down the line. 

We now have two nations that have outright bought tank fleets, and several more significantly expanding them as they observe a large scale conflict. Some degree of note taking has to be taking place. 

[Carolus]

13 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Nothing is stopping them from doing so.
 

The limits of military budget do. 

European populations are not politically mobilised, except for the populist elements who want to reduce military spending, and the majority of the rest is feeling lukewarm towards defense topics at best.

The people who actually realise how lop-sided international order currently looks and how hard some nations are pushing to topple that tower is actually quite small. These people exist across a spectrum of non-populist parties from leftwing to conservative, but are a minority within each.

So there is a clear size limit to the money pot. 

What was the proverb again? Preparing for the last war to fight the next one.

Edited September 6 by Carolus

[ArmouredTopHat]

9 minutes ago, Carolus said:

The limits of military budget do. 

European populations are not politically mobilised, except for the populist elements who want to reduce military spending, and the majority of the rest is feeling lukewarm towards defense topics at best.

The people who actually realise how lop-sided international order currently looks and how hard some nations are pushing to topple that tower is actually quite small. These people exist across a spectrum of non-populist parties from leftwing to conservative, but are a minority within each.

So there is a clear size limit to the money pot. 

What was the proverb again? Preparing for the last war to fight the next one.

Netherlands recently increased their budget for Nato by 2.4 billion.

They specifically want to increase the firepower and capability of their brigades for a war that could fought very soon. That means tanks and it means getting those tanks as soon as possible. The reasoning is sound and it does not exclude drones at all from the equation. 

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/dutch-government-future-proofing-military-increasingly-volatile-world-113420555

The goal is for a more well rounded and future proof force with the firepower it needs. Tanks are just one component of the increased budget, there is plenty of room for drones in said budget as well. 
 

The last Dutch tank division was disbanded in 2011, but since 2015 the Netherlands has leased a fleet of 18 Leopard tanks from Germany, which are based in Lower Saxony.

The decision follows the new cabinet’s pledge to raise defence spending to match the Nato threshold of 2%, boosting the department’s annual budget by €2.4 billion.

The transatlantic alliance’s latest Defence Planning Capability Review said the Dutch army lacked the capacity to supply a “heavy” and “medium” infantry brigade in wartime.

Former head of the armed forces Mart de Kruif told NOS: “If you have to fight a war, and war is much nearer than we used to think, you want the country to be able to give our boys and girls the best equipment there is. You can’t fight on land without tanks.”

The tanks are expected to be German-manufactured Leopard 2A8 vehicles. The defence ministry would not confirm which model it was planning to buy, but the first orders could be signed off within months.

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

Meanwhile we continue to see growing numbers of UAVs downed by cheap FPVs. We are in the hundreds at this point and these recce drones are not dirt cheap either.

I recall posting about the possibility of drones being countered by drones a few months ago, suggesting that it could be very much possible to counteract the increased ISR environment with such means. (With some confidently stating that this was impossible I might add) That could become a reality at this rate of destruction. 

Edited September 6 by ArmouredTopHat

[Butschi]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

The point of investment in unmanned systems is not the platforms at this point, it is the expertise. Like any other new technology in warfare it takes a lot of time and effort to build up the doctrine, tactics and training required to employ it. That expertise is key to being able to keep up with wherever that technology goes.

Right now the global leader in unmanned system in warfare is Ukraine. Followed closely by Russia.

For sure that's true but I understood @Carolus' post such that he proposed to immediately go all in i.e. take all the money that gets spent on tanks and invest it in drones instead. I would assume that is a bit over the top for the purpose you describe.

A related question might be how much the experience you gain now is worth a few years from now. Given that what we see right now is more or less remote controlled consumer grade drones in various states of improvisation, a lot is going to change when transitioning to autonomous and to specifically tailoring drones for military purposes and the related industrialization.

I totally get that you have to start somewhere but I think there is a very real danger when investing in a rapidly evolving, disruptive technology too early. At least if there are opportunity costs in the form of not "if we invest this sum now, we can't do it again iwithin the next <5 years or so". Don't know if that is the case.

Wouldn't starting with a much smaller force, that can also be upgraded/replaced regularly and postponing the big investment until the rate with which the technology evolves has decreased enough be smarter? (If you are not directly threatened right now)?

Edited September 6 by Butschi

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, holoween said:

They didnt get rid of their tanks at least not entirely. They still have a tank company under a german tank battalion. And they are purchasing an existing in production tank.

Yup, I'm aware of that.  As far as I know all of the tank related activities were outsourced to Germany, including training and maintenance.  All of that will now need to be recreated and maintained annually.  Unless, of course, the are going to continue outsourcing to Germany.  That will no doubt be less expensive than doing it for themselves, but it adds to the defense budget and right back to my main point that this is not a good strategy.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

They specifically want to increase the firepower and capability of their brigades for a war that could fought very soon. That means tanks and it means getting those tanks as soon as possible. The reasoning is sound for fighting the last war and it does not exclude drones at all from the equation. 

Fixed that for you

As I stated above, the lessons from THIS war, that supposedly the sort of war The Netherlands is buying for, has taught us that tanks have a very limited and very cost ineffective role to play.  While using tanks that one already owns or receives as gifts from someone that already owns them isn't a dumb idea, starting up a capability to support a tiny number of tanks doesn't seem very smart to me at all.

This war has shown, more than anything, that infantry needs protection and that APCs/IFVs are currently the only solution for that protection. The war has also shown that survivability of said armored protection is low, even for superior western designs.  Which means to maintain this capability a nation needs to have a lot of spares that are reasonably ready for service.

For the same amount of money the NL is going to invest in it's tiny fleet of tanks it could dramatically expand armored protection for transporting infantry.  Especially if they moved to something like MRAPs vs. IFVs.

No military budget is endless, even in an existential war of existence.  Defense spending should be directed towards the most efficient and effective use of those limited funds.  MBTs objectively score VERY LOW on that scale for a country like The Netherlands.

Steve

P.S.  note I did not mention drones even once.  The merits of buying tanks is bad enough even without mentioning them, so I didn't feel the need to

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Wouldn't starting with a much smaller force, that can also be upgraded/replaced regularly and postponing the big investment until the rate with which the technology evolves has decreased enough be smarter? (If you are not directly threatened right now)?

My honest assessment is, no. You are describing the normal military force development process when it comes to emerging technologies. We saw this in history from mech/armour to airplanes, to battleships. Everyone starts small in order to hedge, and then upscales. Early adopters have to pay the "fail'" costs, those who wait reap the benefits. 

Problem with drones, as we are seeing in this war, is that scale matters. So having an experimental Battalion to learn some tactical lessons etc is only going to carry so far. That battalion will not provide many insights at how a brigade or division will perform, nor drive strategic and operational thinking. Drones are not small cute "neato" packages. They are opening up another dimension of warfare - synthetic airpower. Very soon they will be able to create "synthetic surface power". That takes widescale experimentation at an operational level at least. Late adopters will be left behind when we get to things like AI integration and mass swarming as a form of modern manoeuvre.

Given that military funding is always a zero sum game, until it is too late. This means that conservative militaries will be at a distinct disadvantage. They will be learning to walk while others are running. Every time this sort of thing happens, a military of the day has to decide if this is just a change to the old game, or a new game. You can guess which one they normally pick.

So investing billions in legacy systems is risky as it pulls funding from the emerging disruptive systems. Of course leaning too far forward is also risk. So the question really is: "how much risk do you want to take?"
    

[The_Capt]

17 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Fixed that for you

As I stated above, the lessons from THIS war, that supposedly the sort of war The Netherlands is buying for, has taught us that tanks have a very limited and very cost ineffective role to play.  While using tanks that one already owns or receives as gifts from someone that already owns them isn't a dumb idea, starting up a capability to support a tiny number of tanks doesn't seem very smart to me at all.

This war has shown, more than anything, that infantry needs protection and that APCs/IFVs are currently the only solution for that protection. The war has also shown that survivability of said armored protection is low, even for superior western designs.  Which means to maintain this capability a nation needs to have a lot of spares that are reasonably ready for service.

For the same amount of money the NL is going to invest in it's tiny fleet of tanks it could dramatically expand armored protection for transporting infantry.  Especially if they moved to something like MRAPs vs. IFVs.

No military budget is endless, even in an existential war of existence.  Defense spending should be directed towards the most efficient and effective use of those limited funds.  MBTs objectively score VERY LOW on that scale for a country like The Netherlands.

Steve

P.S.  note I did not mention drones even once.  The merits of buying tanks is bad enough even without mentioning them, so I didn't feel the need to

Forget it Steve, no point debating with a position that is a single dot. Despite mountains of evidence: tanks = firepower, wars need firepower...etc. Firepower is being disaggregated into a lethal mist all over the battlefield. But hey, let's keep pouring billions into old heavy concentrated firepower while hoping EW and magic sky guns can somehow keep it in the game. 

And yet, we are the unreasonable ones in all this. It is hilarious actually. I am reading Dreadnought by Massie. The biggest opponents to steel mast-less engine driven ships - the Royal Navy. Biggest opponents to Fisher's ideas on modern gunnery - the RN. Biggest opponents to the all-big gun ships - the RN. And this was during the 19th century. Now in the 21st we are just seeing it all over again.

[ArmouredTopHat]

17 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The war has also shown that survivability of said armored protection is low, even for superior western designs.

This is an extremely debatable point of contention. 

We have seen Bradleys shrug of horrific levels of punishment that would make your typical BMP attempt a space program attempt. Even when the vehicle is destroyed, the crews typically escape, which is exactly the point of western vehicles. 

We have heard significant praise from the AFU regarding the Strv122s with their enhanced top attack protection schemes that have coincidently made them extremely resistant to FPV hits in areas that would otherwise be vulnerable. Armoured protection absolutely works and is possible, its just a matter of applying it to the right areas. 360 protection is much more highly prioritised now in the wake of drones than it was from cold war era designs. 

I think you are underestimating survivability of armour in general, let alone western designs. ERA works for a reason. 

Taking M1A2s from the 80s which dont exactly have the best protection levels of western designs even before the consideration of top attack is a little unfair to pass judgement on. AFU seems pleased with them regardless, though the Leopard 2s seem to be garnering more praise overall. 

Leopard 2A8s are looking to be pretty excellent overall, so its a good choice provided the Dutch get them in a timely manner in terms of design. 

I think its telling that the Dutch military received extra funding and the first thing they set in stone was more tanks. Given this has been part of a trend in general at least with NATO militaries, I am more inclined to go with their assessments on the situation. Clearly they believe that you cannot in fact wage a land war without tanks and that they supply something that drones cannot to force capability. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

18 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Forget it Steve, no point debating with a position that is a single dot. Despite mountains of evidence: tanks = firepower, wars need firepower...etc. Firepower is being disaggregated into a lethal mist all over the battlefield. But hey, let's keep pouring billions into old heavy concentrated firepower while hoping EW and magic sky guns can somehow keep it in the game. 

And yet, we are the unreasonable ones in all this. It is hilarious actually. I am reading Dreadnought by Massie. The biggest opponents to steel mast-less engine driven ships - the Royal Navy. Biggest opponents to Fisher's ideas on modern gunnery - the RN. Biggest opponents to the all-big gun ships - the RN. And this was during the 19th century. Now in the 21st we are just seeing it all over again.

Its amazing when people decide that they in fact know better than several different militaries worth of staff that make these decisions based on operational requirements.

This coming from the same guy who keeps claiming that ISR is a constant while Ukraine is actively knocking out hundreds of UAVs per month now, and has been curiously silent when either Ukraine or Russia has achieved tactical and operational surprise on the battlefield. (And was corrected numerous times on such)

But sure, keep clinging to your battleship comparison that has no real relevance to this discussion. 

Just because you have an opinion does not make it correct. 

Edited September 6 by ArmouredTopHat

[Général_Hiver]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

The point of investment in unmanned systems is not the platforms at this point, it is the expertise. Like any other new technology in warfare it takes a lot of time and effort to build up the doctrine, tactics and training required to employ it. That expertise is key to being able to keep up with wherever that technology goes.

 

Exactly. The Panzer I and the Panzer II were both either obsolete or on the verge of by the start of World War II. Did that make prewar investment in the Panzerwaffe a waste of resources? No, because you build up a reserve of knowledge for future empl0yment, whether it be technical, operational, logistical etc. You also get the opportunity to integrate them into the rest of your armed forces and see what works.