How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[LongLeftFlank]

Somewhat OT (or is it?), but for a few months now Powerpoint (yes, the PMC C-suite's favoured mode of communication) has been cheerily offering to caption my imagery for me: e.g. 'image of a city'. MS doesn't even bother to hide that they're spying on you anymore.... and you're paying for the priv.

So how long now before the MS AI becomes smart enough to figure out I'm looking at a very specific piece of land for a very specific purpose, connect that with my LI profile, and offer up that compet. intel to whomever's willing to pay for it?

....Oh wait, that's already been true for a decade, at least for 'persons of interest' to the Man (fortunately I have measured out my life with coffee spoons, so have never rated that level of interest AFAIK, although I don't fly through China/HK now, just in case).

Software as a Spyware.

Type with care out there, grogs. Anonymity ain't what it used ta be.

[billbindc]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Really? Well then the US is the lone exception to the rule - and Empire with a Heart of Gold. Cold hearted calculus centred on self interest is always at the heart of policy. We could unpack Vietnam but I disagree that US involvement, risk and continual bleeding was out of an altruistic love of the Vietnamese people.

The US and West already walked away from one nation after great expense and promises: Afghanistan. We can just as easily take the eye off the ball for Ukraine. The fact the US has a presidential candidate who is likely to do it - again through cold calculus of self-interest kinda proves my point.

This is not to discount the influence of emotion and will of the American people but let’s not kid ourselves here. And remember you are talking to someone who has watched our benevolent master turn on us, more than once - despite the warm regards of our neighbours and in many cases family to the south.

I am not saying we are nice guys...which I think you know has not ever been my take and Afghanistan proves rather than refutes the point. The US stayed in Afghanistan for at least 12 years after all logic, commitment or strategy made any sense. American domestic politics treats foreign policy as if sunk costs fallacies don't exist and just to show you an irrefutable data point just look at what happened to Biden's approval rating before and after the Afghanistan withdrawal. 

[LongLeftFlank]

Kastehelmi's hot take on the thermite-dropping 'Dragon Drones'.

1983 arcade nostalgia. At 50 cents a play, no less!

 

Edited September 7 by LongLeftFlank

[cyrano01]

7 hours ago, hcrof said:

Sounds interesting, have you got a link?

https://www.crowdcast.io/c/rafm-conference-2024/yVHFC

This is the stream, you probably need to register to get to it.

It's the third speaker on this panel , starts about 46:30 in.

[The_Capt]

10 minutes ago, billbindc said:

I am not saying we are nice guys...which I think you know has not ever been my take and Afghanistan proves rather than refutes the point. The US stayed in Afghanistan for at least 12 years after all logic, commitment or strategy made any sense. American domestic politics treats foreign policy as if sunk costs fallacies don't exist and just to show you an irrefutable data point just look at what happened to Biden's approval rating before and after the Afghanistan withdrawal. 

Sure, but the US did not stay as a result of deep warm feeling for the plight of the Afghan people either. Nor was that the reason for the war in the first place. Like Vietnam, a quagmire is a quagmire for as much harsh domestic political calculus as foreign policy. The internal harsh calculus was for each party to blame the other and kick the can down the road until someone gets stuck with the bill. They all did this until it finally landed on Biden who decided he could take the hit or was forced to. None of that has anything to do with a free and democratic Afghanistan, which all became political collateral damage in the great US game. 

The harsh external calculus of Afghanistan was that the US is the global power, at the center of a global order. And as such does not cut and run. If there was a way to do that in that country 12 years earlier the US would have bolted.

Anyone working at a national level outside of the US already knows that relying on the good-wishes of the American population is a slippery beast. You can only count on so much before internal political power games hijack all those warm regards. 

 

[LongLeftFlank]

Air-to-air drone combat intensifies west of Bahmut. 'Fokker scourge' imminent?

https://t.me/umftteam/386

(Courtesy of Perpetua's geolocation map)

 

[Vlad]

Taking a little break from reading the old, even ancient parts of this thread (page 836 atm), this was my source of informations about the war before finding this thread, it may be of interest for someone:

https://valka.online/

It's written in Czech, but the automatic translation does a fairly good job. Note that names are using Czech transcription instead of English, so some names may be confusing (Charkov->Kharkiv is one of the easier ones). They provide daily reports and some extra articles like interviews, or info on some topic, for example usage of the MANPADS in the conflict.

Daily analysis consists of Last day's reports from Ukrainian Air Force/Air Defense, then ground combat,  diplomatic/political news, peculiarity of Russian economics (peculiarity in the meaning like saying "with special needs" instead of "retarded"), new from the Middle-East and a "cherry on top", which is usually a sarcastic pointing out of some idiocy from Russia (propaganda, official declarations, whatever), or their Western sycophants (Orbán, LePen, Czech or Slovak wannabe Quislings, etc.) along with videos like drone footages.

 

They even are in contact with someone from Ukraine's 128nd Mountain Assault Brigade (please correct me if I have translated it wrong) and organized a  crowdfunding campaign or two for stuff like drones, medical supplies or other item that may be useful for them.

 

22 hours ago, billbindc said:

There was Halsey’s big screwup with Taffy 3 and Kurita’s battle group but that was just 6 jeep carriers. A full sized carrier group would have annihilated the Japanese force.

Unless I misunderstood the meaning of the word "outfight" that photon used, then Taffy 3 wasn't outfought. It was a David vs. Goliath, yes, but the suicidal bravery of Taffy 3's DDs and DEs (especially USS Johnston and USS Samuel B. Roberts) confused the hell out of Kurita who thought he was fighting the main US fleet and it was him who was outfought, lost his nerve and fled with his tail tucked between his legs.

Edited September 7 by Vlad

[ArmouredTopHat]

6 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Oh please, what is it with you and the Zero-to-Sixty / All-Or-Nothing argumentation?

i.e. if you can find a single 'counterexample', that's all it takes to refute?

Its almost like this conflict doesn't really fit the criteria of a proxy war for a lot of countries, and many are involved for far more important reasons?

The whole proxy war argument is heavily utilised by Russian propaganda for a reason. 

 

6 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

On the current utility of tanks, as best I can see from anecdata, since late 2023, MBTs on both sides have been largely playing the role of 1944 German StuGs, the very way every CMBN player can do in their sleep..... single vehicle shoot and scoot. Because if they stick around, they die. A lot of times they die anyway.

.... they emerge from their hides once a RU (or UKR) attack has committed itself, punch it in the teeth with a priority on enemy troop carriers (or newly occupied buildings/positions where the attackers haven't laid mines yet), then GTFO.

Other observed uses, such as rolling point for a mech column attack, seem to invariably result in the loss of the tank. Again, putting a CM hat on, perhaps that's tactically better than losing the troop carriers it's escorting, but it's costly, per prior discussion.

The point to be made is that this is a very high intensity conflict, people, vehicles and assets in general are dropping like flies. Does not remove the important of vehicles or tanks in doing what they do, else losses in personnel would be even higher in my opinion. Plenty of footage out there of tanks surviving while performing combat tasks if you look for it. 

https://www.youtube.com/@Shawshank.

This guys channel has been from the perspective of either one or two tanks for the entire conflict. I feel like we generally have the issue of being subject to the Belton Cooper effect when it comes to tanks in general. We see a fair number (mostly Russian) tanks being destroyed and therefore some conclude tanks are useless, without actually examining what the tanks are doing or what the survival ratios actually are for either crew or vehicle. 

 

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Kursk proved that mech still works on an undefended border…until it doesn’t.

Can we please stop claiming Kursk was undefended? It was literally a manned border. Stop acting like Ukraine just walked in without issue. They had to breach at least one layer of defences and destroy numerous border crossings filled with personnel, plus engaging in running battles with Akhmat and conscript soldiers during the initial penetrations. It was a weak line for sure, but it was hardly an undefended one. Why else did Ukraine plan an operation in detail for its attack?

Not mention reserves which included mechanised units from the Russians being in theatre within a few days. 

Edited September 7 by ArmouredTopHat

[LongLeftFlank]

15 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

The point to be made is that this is a very high intensity conflict, people, vehicles and assets in general are dropping like flies. Does not remove the important of vehicles or tanks in doing what they do, else losses in personnel would be even higher in my opinion.

Your opinion is... your opinion. And while it might actually be true, the question you keep getting hammered by folks here on, and haven't satisfactorily answered, is....

Going forward, aren't there better and cheaper ways now of doing the tactically useful things that (increasingly expensive but short-lived, even if not yet measured in minutes, as opposed to sorties) MBTs have been reduced to doing in the last 3 years?

15 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I feel like we generally have the issue of being subject to the Belton Cooper effect when it comes to tanks in general. We see a fair number (mostly Russian) tanks being destroyed and therefore some conclude tanks are useless, without actually examining what the tanks are doing or what the survival ratios actually are for either crew or vehicle. 

Fine. Feel free to cite hard data here on crew and vehicle surival rates, if you have it (and saying 'it's in the video' is not a citation)

***

Remember all the discussions over on the WW2 threads about the usefulness of 'eggshells with hammers'?

That's where all MBTs seem to be relegated to now, which has basically removed 80-90% of their post-1917 'use cases'.  And even if we put on a whole load of e-gizmos, and double the cost (and crew training reqs, and fields maintenance needs), are a meaningful number of those cases restored?

****

To move away from the dreadnought analogy for once, this all reminds me of the 1980s debates around 'Star Wars' (SDI). And that all came down to: the other side can build and fling more missiles at your defenses than you can ever hope to knock down, no matter what your gee whiz tech is.

And at that point, the USSR chucked in the towel (well, it's one of many reasons they did so, but it was up there).

Edited September 7 by LongLeftFlank

[ArmouredTopHat]

The Russians got so pissed at the Mykhailivka rail bridge choke point that they actually blew it up lmao

 

Edited September 7 by ArmouredTopHat

[acrashb]

3 hours ago, Probus said:

Why is Ukraine sending F-16 pilots to train of CF-18s, or am I missing something?

The Honourable Bill Blair's staff would be happy to respond to your query: https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/bill-blair(88961)#contact

3 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

So how long now before the MS AI becomes smart enough to figure out I'm looking at a very specific piece of land for a very specific purpose, connect that with my LI profile, and offer up that compet. intel to whomever's willing to pay for it

Right now, with legal assistance, I'm reviewing Microsoft's Copilot Terms & Conditions, along with the Privacy Policy.
The T&C's prohibit your concerns, and the Privacy Policy is aligned with GDPR, so same thing.
I'm not saying it will never happen, but as of now MS won't do it.
The concerning part is not what they will do, but what they can do.  And MS can do far too much - in this I agree with you.  For the moment, Copilot can't see your local or cloud files, but that will likely change as people see how convenient it is to ask the AI "when did I sign the divorce agreement" instead of filtering through files.

[ArmouredTopHat]

30 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Your opinion is... your opinion. And while it might actually be true, the question you keep getting hammered by folks here on, and haven't satisfactorily answered, is....

Going forward, aren't there better and cheaper ways now of doing the tactically useful things that (increasingly expensive but short-lived, even if not yet measured in minutes, as opposed to sorties) MBTs have been reduced to doing in the last 3 years?

Of course my opinions are my own, but they are in part based on the opinions of others with far greater experience on the matter, be it with tanks or military strategy in general. 

My point of contention is not every tank has a lifespan measured in minutes. I literally just gave you an example of a tanker who's been fighting in the same tank for literally the entire conflict (With a small chance he swapped tanks early 2022) Lets not act like the tankers are getting fresh vehicles and are losing them in the space of a hour consistently. 

Not satisfied?

Lets look at Bunny:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/12ikdrl/t80bvm_bunny_the_most_famous_captured_russian/

This tank was captured and lasted well over a year in active combat service despite being damaged a few times, achieving numerous kills before it was finally struck by artillery and destroyed to prevent recapture. Crew survived. I think you will find this is a typical story for tanks and tankers in general, at least for the AFU.

I take issue with this seeming conclusion that tanks are achieving nothing when there has been literally zero indication from either side that they feel tanks are useless. Not one interview, not one passing comment by a soldier or general even with the pretty restrictive environment in general. The most I see is an acknowledgement that tanks have to fight smart / fight different to what many were taught doctrine wise, but that this doesn't for a moment effect that value on the battlefield. 

 

 

30 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Fine. Feel free to cite hard data here on crew and vehicle surival rates, if you have it (and saying 'it's in the video' is not a citation)

***

Remember all the discussions over on the WW2 threads about the usefulness of 'eggshells with hammers'?

That's where all MBTs seem to be relegated to now, which has basically removed 80-90% of their post-1917 'use cases'.  And even if we put on a whole load of e-gizmos, and double the cost (and crew training reqs, and fields maintenance needs), are a meaningful number of those cases restored?

Of course I do not have hard Data, but neither do you! This is exactly why we need to be cautious about making such premature conclusions when we dont even have the full picture. The very same premise happened due to Belton Coopers book that claimed that US Tanks were 'deathtraps' until the hard data came through that showed that Shermans were actually pretty damn safe tanks when it came to casualties. Only something like 1500 tankers in the entire US army died in the whole war in all theatres, a far lower % ratio than their brethren in the infantry. I would not be surprised if similar ratios exist for the tankers in this war, because while there are plenty of dangerous weapon systems out there, there is far greater danger for the infantry as well. 

Edited September 7 by ArmouredTopHat

[Astrophel]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Sure, but the US did not stay as a result of deep warm feeling for the plight of the Afghan people either. Nor was that the reason for the war in the first place. Like Vietnam, a quagmire is a quagmire for as much harsh domestic political calculus as foreign policy. The internal harsh calculus was for each party to blame the other and kick the can down the road until someone gets stuck with the bill. They all did this until it finally landed on Biden who decided he could take the hit or was forced to. None of that has anything to do with a free and democratic Afghanistan, which all became political collateral damage in the great US game. 

The harsh external calculus of Afghanistan was that the US is the global power, at the center of a global order. And as such does not cut and run. If there was a way to do that in that country 12 years earlier the US would have bolted.

Anyone working at a national level outside of the US already knows that relying on the good-wishes of the American population is a slippery beast. You can only count on so much before internal political power games hijack all those warm regards. 

 

What a weird point of view, like looking at life through one of those distorting mirrors at the circus. In Europe most of us have no problem recognising the commitment of Americans to freedom and liberty which cost many many American lives and without which we would be likely be living under the Nazi jackboot or that of his friends Stalin and Mussolini.  Most American interventions in my lifetime have been made with >>>50 idealistic belief that people should be free to determine their own destiny and <<<50% cynical self interest.

US made a hash of it in many places including Afghanistan but not for want of good intentions.

The internal calculus in US politics is another distorting mirror.  Currently my guess is that Trump noticed his ratings went up several percent when the republicans voted to support Ukraine.  My trust in the American people is that they will always stand up for the people fighting for their rights. 

Edited September 7 by Astrophel

[LongLeftFlank]

7 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I take issue with this seeming conclusion that tanks are achieving nothing....

See? Zero to 60....

Also, your anecdotes seem like they date to earlier in the war (pre mid-2023).

Look, no doubt some savvy tankers have kept their vehicles (and themselves) alive, by:

a. choosing their engagements carefully (e.g. when the enemy assault groups have fully committed, but haven't had time to bring up their ATGW or lay mines)

b. knowing when to bug out; and

c. (still in dispute, fine) by hiding from the law of averages

But the Armoured Branch as we known it, with its corpus of mech battalion tactics based on mass and combined arms and yadayada that was once rock to smash  scissors seems to most of us here to have been largely reduced to this today....

[ArmouredTopHat]

2 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Look, no doubt some savvy tankers have kept their vehicles (and themselves) alive, by:

a. choosing their engagements carefully (e.g. when the enemy assault groups have fully committed, but haven't had time to bring up their ATGW or lay mines)

b. knowing when to bug out; and

c. (still in dispute, fine) by hiding from the law of averages

But the Armoured Branch as we known it, with its corpus of mech battalion tactics based on mass and combined arms and yadayada that was once rock to smash  scissors seems to most of us here to have been largely reduced to this today....

So in essence like everything else in this war, existing assets have adapted to fight in the new conditions? 

While proving just so very recently that they can still be used in the traditional mechanised role when the opportunity strikes?

 

3 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Also, your anecdotes seem like they date to earlier in the war (pre mid-2023).

ShawShank is still alive in his tank as of 12 days ago, testing out a spare part. 

I know its anecdotal, but I genuinely believe that we need hard data before making assessments that tanks are not fit for purpose. 

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-this-is-such-a-stupid-tank-commanders-plea-for-western-upgrades-12791111

This was the closest I got to finding a Ukrainian stating their tanks are not ideal, and this was all in order to get western MBTs into service to supplement their far older platforms, most of which are sadly outperformed by the latest Russian models. It was not a condemnation of the tank platform itself. 

[The_Capt]

27 minutes ago, Astrophel said:

What a weird point of view, like looking at life through one of those distorting mirrors at the circus. In Europe most of us have no problem recognising the commitment of Americans to freedom and liberty which cost many many American lives and without which we would be likely be living under the Nazi jackboot or that of his friends Stalin and Mussolini.  Most American interventions in my lifetime have been made with >>>50 idealistic belief that people should be free to determine their own destiny and <<<50% cynical self interest.

US made a hash of it in many places including Afghanistan but not for want of good intentions.

The internal calculus in US politics is another distorting mirror.  Currently my guess is that Trump noticed his ratings went up several percent when the republicans voted to support Ukraine.  My trust in the American people is that they will always stand up for the people fighting for their rights. 

[LongLeftFlank]

26 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

So in essence like everything else in this war, existing assets have adapted to fight in the new conditions? 

Yes, but there's a big gap between DEATHTRAPS: NO USE AT ALL, EVER vs. WE'LL STILL USE THEM, CAREFULLY, UNTIL WE FIELD SOMETHING BETTER vs. STILL USEFUL SOMETIMES, BUT BLOODY EXPENSIVE AND THERE ARE FAR CHEAPER AND MORE PLENTIFUL EGGSHELLS WITH HAMMERS TO USE are entirely separate questions.

...I mean, USS Missouri was usefully chucking oil drum sized HE rounds onto Hezbollah as late as 1983 (to mitigate the risk of shot down aircraft, with hostages, etc.), but there were at least a dozen vastly better ways of delivering that firepower by then and the extremely remote 'corner case' simply didn't justify keeping that magnificent dinosaur operating. (NJ and USS Iowa could still be unmothballed if needed, I gather)

26 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

While proving just so very recently that they can still be used in the traditional mechanised role when the opportunity strikes?

I have seen no evidence as yet that the Ukrainians have used any kind of meaningful mech (by which I mean MBTs working in groups, in combination with other arms, to disrupt and destroy enemy formations) tactics in the Kursk incursion, other than yes, 'MBTs were and are involved.'

Edited September 7 by LongLeftFlank

[ArmouredTopHat]

10 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Yes, but there's a big gap between DEATHTRAPS: NO USE AT ALL, EVER vs. WE'LL STILL USE THEM, CAREFULLY, UNTIL WE FIELD SOMETHING BETTER vs. STILL USEFUL SOMETIMES, BUT BLOODY EXPENSIVE AND THERE ARE FAR CHEAPER AND MORE PLENTIFUL EGGSHELLS WITH HAMMERS TO USE are entirely separate questions.

Ok, so what performs the role of a tank better than a tank then? What has the firepower, armour, mobility and versatility?

 

10 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

I have seen no evidence as yet that the Ukrainians have used any kind of meaningful mech (by which I mean MBTs working in groups, in combination with other arms, to disrupt and destroy enemy formations) tactics in the Kursk incursion, other than yes, 'MBTs were and are involved.'

So we cant call it a mechanised offensive because assets were relatively spread out? I saw plenty of footage of tanks working closely with mobile elements from BMPs to MRAPS to infantry close support. Why is close concentration of force (Something that's proven to be both hard and unwise to do given the Russians will literally lob Iskanders at you for some reason) required for it to be a mechanised operation despite all the building blocks of a mechanised offensive and its results being quite present?

Edited September 7 by ArmouredTopHat

[LongLeftFlank]

24 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

They lack our altruism, sir!

https://clip.cafe/share/needless-say

Edited September 7 by LongLeftFlank

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

I have seen no evidence as yet that the Ukrainians have used any kind of meaningful mech (by which I mean MBTs working in groups, in combination with other arms, to disrupt and destroy enemy formations) tactics in the Kursk incursion, other than yes, 'MBTs were and are involved.'

Exactly. There may well have been IFVs and MBTs at Kursk but we have zero evidence of actual combined arms employment at scale in this sector. Given most resistance were cops and border guards it is unlikely there was any real requirement. This proves that if one rolls tanks on a local constabulary…you will likely win.

Of course single note pundits are going to turn this entire thing into a glorious mech and armour charge to rival VII Corp in the Gulf. They are so desperate to make tanks relevant that any single video of their use on the battlefield is “evidence” of enduring utility. Meanwhile anything that says otherwise is “out of context” or “too preliminary”.

And this is not just our local ATH in his tankie pyjamas. I have been watching pundits making more and more strained, and tenuous logic leaps just to try and keep big metal in the game. It is almost as though if they tell each other enough times then it will be true.

The facts are:

- both sides in this war have metal. The RA in particular had (and stress past tense) thousands of tanks, IFVs and APCs.

- The terrain is nearly perfect for armor and mech manoeuvre. Not as good as the desert but damned close. Ukraine has well developed road infrastructure as well.

- This war has a massive frontage, 100s of kms, with very shallow troop densities on both sides.

- This war has been in stasis for nearly two years. Both sides have tried breakout battle repeatedly. And they used mech and armor to try and do it.

- Mass is not working. No side has been able to muster large mech/armor mass to effect. Nor does logistics to support these manoeuvres appear to work.

- We have seen many reports and indications that both mech and armor are being employed in non-standard roles. Battle taxis while troops dismount well back. Tanks in an indirect fire role.

- And substantial evidence that the combination of unmanned and precision strike, linked into modern C4ISR are the root cause for making mech and armor “not work when they should.”

But of course none of this is good enough.

[Butschi]

53 minutes ago, Astrophel said:

What a weird point of view, like looking at life through one of those distorting mirrors at the circus. In Europe most of us have no problem recognising the commitment of Americans to freedom and liberty which cost many many American lives and without which we would be likely be living under the Nazi jackboot or that of his friends Stalin and Mussolini.  Most American interventions in my lifetime have been made with >>>50 idealistic belief that people should be free to determine their own destiny and <<<50% cynical self interest.

US made a hash of it in many places including Afghanistan but not for want of good intentions.

The internal calculus in US politics is another distorting mirror.  Currently my guess is that Trump noticed his ratings went up several percent when the republicans voted to support Ukraine.  My trust in the American people is that they will always stand up for the people fighting for their rights. 

Say what? I'm fairly certain that most in Europe still remember George W. Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney and the lies we were served about WMDs. Or the fake testimony about newborn babies being killed in Kuwait. Oh and Vietnam was absolutely everyones darling over here. Maybe I'm living in a bubble but I don't know anyone who thinks that all of that happened for the benefit of the locals.

Now, I am convinced that many US soldiers fought in those wars for all the right reasons. But that is a different topic.

[Probus]

2 hours ago, Astrophel said:

The internal calculus in US politics is another distorting mirror.  Currently my guess is that Trump noticed his ratings went up several percent when the republicans voted to support Ukraine.  My trust in the American people is that they will always stand up for the people fighting for their rights. 

Gallop poll of American's support for Ukraine:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/643601/americans-say-not-helping-ukraine-enough.aspx

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

27 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

We have seen many reports and indications that both mech and armor are being employed in non-standard roles. Battle taxis while troops dismount well back. Tanks in an indirect fire role.

Have you even seen half of the combat dismounts in this war? I have lost count of the amount of times AFU troops have dismounted literally next to trench lines they reinforce or assault. This is honestly a load of rubbish. 
 

One example of countless. Same for tanks. Plenty of instances of them firing at closer ranges as well as far. (literally a video not even a few days ago of a AFU tank RAMMING a Russian MTLB.

Just because  combat can happen at long range doesn't mean it always does. Didn't playing combat mission tell you that?

 

52 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

And this is not just our local ATH in his tankie pyjamas. I have been watching pundits making more and more strained, and tenuous logic leaps just to try and keep big metal in the game. It is almost as though if they tell each other enough times then it will be true.

Interesting terminology usage. Perhaps a little bit projecting when you literally refuse to consider Kursk being a mobile operation despite it being pretty clear cut. 

 

54 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Exactly. There may well have been IFVs and MBTs at Kursk but we have zero evidence of actual combined arms employment at scale in this sector. Given most resistance were cops and border guards it is unlikely there was any real requirement. This proves that if one rolls tanks on a local constabulary…you will likely win.

Bordering on insulting to the Ukrainians going up against tanks and IFVs in the region. Including an instance where a BTR company bloodied some BTR-4s. I honestly dont know how you can conclude this when we see everything from Challenger 2s, Strykers and various BMPs and MRAPs fighting with their support elements against Russian mech. 

 

[billbindc]

3 hours ago, Vlad said:

Unless I misunderstood the meaning of the word "outfight" that photon used, then Taffy 3 wasn't outfought. It was a David vs. Goliath, yes, but the suicidal bravery of Taffy 3's DDs and DEs (especially USS Johnston and USS Samuel B. Roberts) confused the hell out of Kurita who thought he was fighting the main US fleet and it was him who was outfought, lost his nerve and fled with his tail tucked between his legs.

Taffy definitely out fought Kurita but I wouldn't say Kurita fled. He realized that he had been at it too long and that the superior resources of the US fleet were going to eventually crush him. Yes, he was confused about the particulars but his withdrawal was reasonably well considered. 

[billbindc]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Not sure where the strawman became that the US fights purely out of altruism but it certainly does not come from what I have stated. The reality is that the US fights for what it perceives to be its interests and then often overcommits to fights because of an accurate assessment that there will be domestic political blowback for whichever pol finally makes the call to end involvement. China, Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan, inter alia all illustrate the point. That doesn't mean that the US is entirely reliable, etc, etc.