How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Butschi]

19 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

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?"
    

Understood. I guess, my point is about this:

20 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

They will be learning to walk while others are running.

Isn't it more like learning to drive while others are already running and now also need to learn to drive? The difference to previous emerging technologies is that we are seeing not one but at least to technologies emerging and interacting with each other. So while e.g. there was a huge leap in airplane technology since the start of ww1, the concepts of how to steer a plane did not change all that much.

I have a hard time believing that autonomous drone swarms a few years from now will have much in common with the drones we are seeing now. That's because they will not simply be an evolutionary increment of today's drones. Once autonomous drones are not simply programmed to behave the same as a human controller would but is able to learn itself how to do things most effectively, such an entity will simply be and do something different than a group of humans steering a group of drones.

And in that case I kind of doubt what experience was gathered before will be worth much.

But maybe I've just watched too much Terminator, recently...

[Tux]

2 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

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. 

Is it me or is there something a little uncanny about most of the approach vectors shown in these clips: attacking a moving target while keeping it square in the centre of the camera's FOV, without having to move the camera at all...?  That's a very specific and precise vector they are flying.

Maybe (probably) I'm underestimating the skill of Ukrainian pilots but I am sorely tempted to think that a lot of those video clips were filmed during autonomous attacks.

[Tux]

40 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

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.

You've made this argument a few times over the last few months.  To be clear, are you expecting future AFVs to feature 360 (and rooftop!) protection equivalent to that of a Cold War MBT's frontal arc?  As well as APS?  If so, please expand on your thoughts regarding such vehicles' likely height, weight and mobility...

 

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

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?"
    

What I think is best for this, and some other capabilities, is for it to be held at the NATO level.  Each member nation contributes money and personnel, but it's held at the strategic level.  Billions need to be poured into this each and every year, so why not pool resources instead of expecting 20+ nations to reinvent the wheel and then most of them let the air bleed out so that they have a flat tire?

I think NATO has the right sort of framework to make a centralized drone program work pretty well.  As we've seen in Ukraine, concentration (mass) of drones is extremely important, even decisive.  The drone force for NATO needs to be flexible enough to rapidly redeploy anywhere on the battlefield and work equally well with whatever units are there.  Very much like air power and, to some extent, artillery.  NATO already has the experience for that sort of thing.

I'm not saying that individual nations shouldn't have their own integrated drone force.  They absolutely should.  But it won't get NATO the mass and sustainment capabilities that it would need in the event of a big land war with Russia.  Nobody but the US has that sort of resource pool to tap into and this absolutely can not be a US only capability for a variety of reasons.  Not the least of which is the recent phenomena of the US not being the steady and reliable partner it has always been.

Steve

[acrashb]

With respect to Durov's arrest and Telegram generally:
 

 

[Battlefront.com]

56 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

This is an extremely debatable point of contention.

No, it's a point of contention that is only debatable if a large body of evidence is discarded.  For example, you have never addressed any of the cost benefit discussions we've had about the relative value of systems when compared against each other side by side.  You also do not want to have a serious discussion about the realities of production priorities and constraints.  These are probably the two most important things to debate and it doesn't seem to get much traction with you because it undermines your deeply held belief system that heavy armor is essential to the battlefield.

56 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

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.

You fell quite nicely into the trap I set for you   As I slyly pointed out in my previous post, I didn't mention unmanned systems at all.  I was explicitly talking about armored vehicles and their value to the battlefields of tomorrow.  You didn't address anything I wrote, but instead something you cooked up on your own.  So let me put this to you again:

If a nation wants to take a very large pile of money and buy the best, most versatile, and most cost effective EXISTING armored vehicle system in existence... the argument is to buy heavily defended APCs or IFVs, not MBTs.

Now, that I've stated it that way, please re-read my original post and reshape your response to that instead of whatever you decided to respond to.

 

56 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

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. 

You fell into another trap

So, by your own admission, you're saying we should trust that what a military does is for the best.  Yes?  Then please explain to me how you think that the decision The Netherlands made 13 years ago to get rid of MBTs was the best decision possible.

I'll put it another way.  You run into some pretty choppy logic waters if you think The Netherlands' decision making is infallible when Decision B was made to undo Decision A.  Logically it seems that The Netherlands made a big mistake with one of those decisions, which means you should not be "more inclined to go with their assessment on the situation".

As I already stated, I am consistent with my logic.  I believe they made a bad decision 13 years ago and they are making another one now.  Two wrongs tend to produce more wrongs.

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

Regarding whether tanks are obsolete or not, let’s remember that gun equipped ships-of-the-line/battleships ruled the seas for 500 years until they encountered aircraft/aircraft carriers in WW2 and became obsolete in the course of a single war. Sometimes technological changes happen with lightning speed.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

Understood. I guess, my point is about this:

Isn't it more like learning to drive while others are already running and now also need to learn to drive? The difference to previous emerging technologies is that we are seeing not one but at least to technologies emerging and interacting with each other. So while e.g. there was a huge leap in airplane technology since the start of ww1, the concepts of how to steer a plane did not change all that much.

I have a hard time believing that autonomous drone swarms a few years from now will have much in common with the drones we are seeing now. That's because they will not simply be an evolutionary increment of today's drones. Once autonomous drones are not simply programmed to behave the same as a human controller would but is able to learn itself how to do things most effectively, such an entity will simply be and do something different than a group of humans steering a group of drones.

And in that case I kind of doubt what experience was gathered before will be worth much.

But maybe I've just watched too much Terminator, recently...

Even with fully autonomous drone swarms there will be the challenges of battlefield management, logistics and targeting. Humans will need to learn how to fight whatever system this turns into. The only way to master that is to get in the game early. No nation went into WW2 with no air force, and came out a global leader in airpower. The global leaders all had been investing in the new domain for decades before - to greater or lesser degrees of success.

Late adopters will definitely benefit in technical leapfrogging, which will include unit costs. But they will not have had time to evolve their own military thinking, nor build a solid foundation of human expertise.

Now, if we are talking full on AI driven warfare - humans entirely out of the loop. Well then we have much bigger problems as the nature of warfare will have changed for the second time in about 100 years (it took about 7000 last time). War will no longer be solely "human" and the profoundness of that shift makes debates about "tank v drones" silly in comparison.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

What I think is best for this, and some other capabilities, is for it to be held at the NATO level.  Each member nation contributes money and personnel, but it's held at the strategic level.  Billions need to be poured into this each and every year, so why not pool resources instead of expecting 20+ nations to reinvent the wheel and then most of them let the air bleed out so that they have a flat tire?

I think NATO has the right sort of framework to make a centralized drone program work pretty well.  As we've seen in Ukraine, concentration (mass) of drones is extremely important, even decisive.  The drone force for NATO needs to be flexible enough to rapidly redeploy anywhere on the battlefield and work equally well with whatever units are there.  Very much like air power and, to some extent, artillery.  NATO already has the experience for that sort of thing.

I'm not saying that individual nations shouldn't have their own integrated drone force.  They absolutely should.  But it won't get NATO the mass and sustainment capabilities that it would need in the event of a big land war with Russia.  Nobody but the US has that sort of resource pool to tap into and this absolutely can not be a US only capability for a variety of reasons.  Not the least of which is the recent phenomena of the US not being the steady and reliable partner it has always been.

Steve

I like where this is headed but NATO is a bloated military bureaucracy - where new ideas go to die. Maybe 5EYEs spin offs in orbit of NATO would work better. NATO involvement will be critical regardless unless we want to risk killing each other with drone swarms who do not talk to each other in combat.

Regardless, it is going to get weird. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 hour ago, Tux said:

You've made this argument a few times over the last few months.  To be clear, are you expecting future AFVs to feature 360 (and rooftop!) protection equivalent to that of a Cold War MBT's frontal arc?  As well as APS?  If so, please expand on your thoughts regarding such vehicles' likely height, weight and mobility...

 

 

 

There is a profound difference between protecting against most heat charges to APFSDS / heavy ATGM munitions. Frontal arcs of tanks in the cold war period were typically geared towards protection for the latter.

I am not at all suggesting this as a protection scheme all around, that is clearly unrealistic to expect in both weight and space required. What is far more realistic is to provide greater degrees of protection to more common shaped charge munitions all around, such as the RPG-7 warhead. This is achievable even with MRAPs, let alone tanks. 

I am instead personally anticipating that we will see either further redistribution of armour to reduce frontal protection emphasis and instead look towards all round and top attack protection (which is what we already see with add on kits and such to side and top armour) or a reduction in size and weight of vehicles (for example removing a crew member and replacing with an autoloader) in order to reduce the amount of surface area that needs protecting. 

https://www.kyivpost.com/analysis/22362

Just some relatively minor modifications to the Swedish strv122s have been highlighted by the Ukrainians as being pretty damn significant to providing additional protection in areas that say the M1A1 has found to be lacking. This is not some big expensive armour package that has massively changed the size and weight of the vehicle in question. One could expect even better results in a vehicle properly designed with it in mind.

Edited September 6 by ArmouredTopHat

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

So, by your own admission, you're saying we should trust that what a military does is for the best.  Yes?  Then please explain to me how you think that the decision The Netherlands made 13 years ago to get rid of MBTs was the best decision possible.

The answer is pretty obvious really. Complacency. 

The Dutch thought much like a lot of European nations that with the end of the cold war, there was no need to have tanks as the prospect of a ground war in Europe were at that point slim. They do a lot but as you say, can be expensive so they clearly figured they could get away without them, especially with the combined Dutch/German brigade that did have tanks.

Funny how as soon as the prospect of a ground conflict in Europe returns with a vengeance the first thing they do with a new budget is reacquire tanks. The same reason why Lithuania are now buying tanks. The same reason why Poland is acquiring greater numbers of tanks. The same reason why Finland always made sure to have plenty of tanks. Its almost as if they still perform a valuable role on the battlefield, at least according to all of these militaries. 

Heck even the bloody MOD are considering expanding their upgrade program for challenger 3
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-considering-expanding-tank-fleet/

Ditto for Israel
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/04/in-ongoing-war-idf-beefs-up-armored-corps-with-new-tank-companies/

Every nation that has a higher probability of a sustained ground war features large fleets of tanks. India, South Korea, Pakistan, China, Egypt just to name a few. They are certainly not reducing these fleets as time goes on. Tank acquisitions have only gone up in response to this conflict.

Feel free to argue that all of these nations are idiots for doing so. I am not contesting that militaries or their political masters can make bad decisions. But there is a degree of commonality here that suggests common sense. 

Edited September 6 by ArmouredTopHat

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

You fell quite nicely into the trap I set for you   As I slyly pointed out in my previous post, I didn't mention unmanned systems at all.  I was explicitly talking about armored vehicles and their value to the battlefields of tomorrow.  You didn't address anything I wrote, but instead something you cooked up on your own.  So let me put this to you again:

I did not specifically mention drones either in that section! Bradleys have been shrugging off various munitions outside of drones. BRAT has been specifically been seen as quite effective by the Ukrainians, from heat rounds, ATGMS and even a 125mm round in one instance. 

I personally dont understand how you can argue these vehicles are not cost efficient when they are literally stopping the men inside from being turned into soup. People matter more than the platforms they use. The vehicle is ultimately expendable if it means the people inside get to live, which is exactly why a Bradley is going to always be better than a BMP-2.

Edited September 6 by ArmouredTopHat

[sburke]

48 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I personally dont understand how you can argue these vehicles are not cost efficient when they are literally stopping the men inside from being turned into soup. 

He didn't.  He actually made an argument to not spend money on tanks but rather on IFVs or MRAPs.

[ArmouredTopHat]

2 hours ago, Tux said:

Is it me or is there something a little uncanny about most of the approach vectors shown in these clips: attacking a moving target while keeping it square in the centre of the camera's FOV, without having to move the camera at all...?  That's a very specific and precise vector they are flying.

Maybe (probably) I'm underestimating the skill of Ukrainian pilots but I am sorely tempted to think that a lot of those video clips were filmed during autonomous attacks.

I think its more that the Russian UAVs are deceptively slow to the camera, so its quite easy for the AFU operators to line up the FPV and intercept it without minimum fuss to the point its routine. Its not like they can do much once they have been detected, they are designed for slow flying instead of sharp manoeuvre. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

2 minutes ago, sburke said:

He didn't.  He actually made an argument to not spend money on tanks but rather on IFVs or MRAPs.

Which the Dutch already have? They have something like 200 CV90s if I recall. (Plus Boxer)

Edited September 6 by ArmouredTopHat

[sburke]

1 minute ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Which the Dutch already have? They have something like 200 CV90s if I recall. (Plus Boxer)

It was a general statement about where militaries are spending their money.  C'mon man are you even reading his posts fully before you post pages worth of stuff on this thread about more tanks? 

[Nastypastie]

1 hour ago, Sgt Joch said:

Regarding whether tanks are obsolete or not, let’s remember that gun equipped ships-of-the-line/battleships ruled the seas for 500 years until they encountered aircraft/aircraft carriers in WW2 and became obsolete in the course of a single war. Sometimes technological changes happen with lightning speed.

Thats a common misconception because of the way WW2 panned out and isn't actually true. By 1945 an allied battleship was nominally the more powerful unit with VT shells and radar assisted targeting on everything down to its medium caliber AA battery (and especially with similarly armed escorts).

It was the jet engine shrinking the opportunity to actually fire at attacking aircraft that sealed the fate of the battleship, with the guided missile being the final nail in the coffin.

[The_Capt]

7 minutes ago, sburke said:

He didn't.  He actually made an argument to not spend money on tanks but rather on IFVs or MRAPs.

The purpose of an IFV is not to "prevent troops from being turned to soup". That is not what we buy them for. They are purchased in order to create and support creation of tactical effects. Namely, mechanized manouevre. If they cannot do that, then they are a gross waste of money regardless if Johnny comes home or not.

And as to that, unless one is attacking an empty border, no vehicles are really producing results. This would be why the operational situation in this war has not really changed in coming up on two years. But hey if the Dutch are buying...well shut me up.

[ArmouredTopHat]

8 minutes ago, sburke said:

It was a general statement about where militaries are spending their money.  C'mon man are you even reading his posts fully before you post pages worth of stuff on this thread about more tanks? 

I am just reporting on noteworthy budget changes from NATO members. Its noteworthy because of their aforementioned abandoning of tanks a decade ago. 

Its important given the context of purchases and decisions made in the last two years in respect of the current conflict. We know NATO countries are watching this conflict very keenly. 

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, Nastypastie said:

Thats a common misconception because of the way WW2 panned out and isn't actually true. By 1945 an allied battleship was nominally the more powerful unit with VT shells and radar assisted targeting on everything down to its medium caliber AA battery (and especially with similarly armed escorts).

It was the jet engine shrinking the opportunity to actually fire at attacking aircraft that sealed the fate of the battleship, with the guided missile being the final nail in the coffin.

What is weird about battleships is that during the 19th century long range naval gunnery was considered "radical". The wind was clearly pointing at longer and longer ranges of engagements that made older ships of the line obsolete very quickly.

Then battleships fell into the same conservative trap as airpower was able to be effective at over the horizon ranges. They slathered AAA on the ships hoping to "solve for aircraft" so they could go back to long range naval gun engagements. But it did not work.

Sound familiar?

[ArmouredTopHat]

2 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The purpose of an IFV is not to "prevent troops from being turned to soup". That is not what we buy them for. They are purchased in order to create and support creation of tactical effects. Namely, mechanized manouevre. If they cannot do that, then they are a gross waste of money regardless if Johnny comes home or not.

And as to that, unless one is attacking an empty border, no vehicles are really producing results. This would be why the operational situation in this war has not really changed in coming up on two years. But hey if the Dutch are buying...well shut me up.

Ah, so the Kursk offensive doesn't count because it was poorly defended? Is that how we excuse what was obvious mechanised warfare from taking place? Because Ukraine attacked a weak section of the line? Isn't the point of mechanised warfare to attack where the enemy is weak?

Also, yeah actually an western IFV is in fact better designed at preventing its occupants from being killed than say a typical soviet era design. That is a literal interconvertible fact at this point. Its also pretty useful when you want to achieve the whole mechanised warfare thingy. Helps if your alive and all. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

In other, more productive news. Strange new munition spotted on an Su-24

[sross112]

So my question is the why. Why are the people that are actually fighting the war still asking for tanks and IFV's? Our forumite theories are interesting and there are smart people here, but the people actually doing the fighting in the war that is unlike any that any of us have experienced or studied still want vehicles that provide superior force protection and the ability to put direct fire onto targets. Why? 

My next question is if Ukraine could get exactly what they asked for, what would they ask for? What mix of tanks, IFVs/APCs, and MRAPs would they want, and why that mix? Would their preferred mix be different then what they thought on day one? Have they found an abundance of MRAPs with a smattering of tanks and IFVs to be preferable, or would they want mostly Bradleys with a smattering of the others? And why?

Or would they prefer container ships full of drones instead? And why?

[ArmouredTopHat]

New aid package dropped, Bradleys and MRAPs included. 

[photon]

10 minutes ago, Nastypastie said:

Thats a common misconception because of the way WW2 panned out and isn't actually true. By 1945 an allied battleship was nominally the more powerful unit with VT shells and radar assisted targeting on everything down to its medium caliber AA battery (and especially with similarly armed escorts).

Oh, it's definitely true.

The Kamikaze attacks wrought havoc on our task forces even in the face of VT, radar, integrated CAP, and defensive rings. The only successful anti-kamikaze tactic was the big blue blanket (which could only be done by carrier task forces).

Are there any historical instances of a surface gun fleet outfighting a carrier task force?