How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Astrophel]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

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.

Had Saddam cooperated with the UN arms inspectors and shown that he had no WMD there would have been no invasion.  Instead he chose to bluff it out - highly inadvisable versus an opponent holding all the high cards.

[The_Capt]

12 minutes ago, billbindc 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.

 

That last one was not meant for you.

Back to this war...US involvement is definitely in line with national interests, and that drives most of the policy on support to Ukraine. Conversely it also drives opposition/resistance to Russia. This was my point yesterday on the fact that Ukraine is caught in between all this and not engaging in some sort of magic hypnosis of the West. This was is not about scared western powers being pulled and cleverly outflanked by a plucky (yet desperate) Ukraine. It is about a great power competition of which Ukraine gets to be the unfortunate frontline. 

This does not totally negate the soft factors which you note. However, I seriously doubt many in the US are going to let a parties/candidates policy toward Ukraine drive their vote - would that it were the case.

[The_Capt]

11 minutes ago, Astrophel said:

Had Saddam cooperated with the UN arms inspectors and shown that he had no WMD there would have been no invasion.  Instead he chose to bluff it out - highly inadvisable versus an opponent holding all the high cards.

Is this what they teach in high schools these days?

[cesmonkey]

Something insightful from the Russian Two Majors telegram channel:
https://t.me/dva_majors/51799

Quote

#Overview #Summary as of September 7, 2024

For a month and one day, the Russian Army has been repelling the armed invasion of the regular Ukrainian Armed Forces into the Kursk region . Initial assessments of the scale of the invasion by respected agencies quickly turned out to be not entirely objective; personnel decisions are being made, but not at the level that many expected given the unpreparedness of the second echelons of defense and the ongoing arrests of high-ranking "old" employees of the Ministry of Defense. So far, the showdown is taking place in the administrative and economic sector.

The enemy in the Kursk region is tied down in battle , but does not abandon attempts to push through our defense, pulling reserves into the region. In the Russian Army, the problem of coordinating disparate units and subdivisions, supplying the front directly with drones, communications, and modern technical surveillance equipment has not been fully overcome in this direction. Nevertheless, the Ukrainian Armed Forces are suffering serious losses under the blows of our missiles, aviation, and artillery, which permanently reduces the likelihood of further movement to Kursk and Rylsk. At the same time, the river crossings in the Glushkovsky district are under attack, which, against the backdrop of the destruction of our bridges, complicates logistics. The enemy is consolidating its occupied borders and the liberation of the territories occupied by it is not expected in the short term. Heavy fighting is underway.

Despite the situation in the Kursk region, Kiev was unable to fully implement the plan to pull all units from the Pokrovsk and Yuzhnodonets directions. At the same time, it itself hit the bottom of the wave-like graph of the saturation of the Ukrainian Armed Forces with people and equipment, which exposed its defensive lines near the same Pokrovsk. There are 5 km left to the city, but the Russian Army is pulling up the southern flank and twisting the front from the north towards Kurakhovo, forming a "bag". In addition, in the Yuzhnodonets direction, the positions of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Ugledar are gradually being surrounded from the flanks. The throw of the Russian Armed Forces from Novomayorskoye to Prechistovka was unexpected. Also significant was the exit of our units south of Chasy Yar to the line of the Seversky Donets - Donbass water canal through Kleshcheyevka, for which fighting has been going on since last year.

Our military predicts new strikes by the Ukrainian Armed Forces on various sections of the front, despite the enemy's operational crisis in Donbas. Despite the approach developed by the military-political leadership in Moscow on the impossibility of any "exchanges" of territories of the same Kursk region, Kiev does not abandon plans to conduct sabotage and army operations in a number of areas, which is expected against the backdrop of the elections in the United States in the fall. The concentration of Ukrainian Armed Forces reserves causes missile strikes, comparable in significance to the destruction of hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers at the military academy in Poltava, but the enemy has never taken into account the loss of personnel.

The question of the West stopping military and technical assistance to Kyiv is not on the table. Europe, under pressure from the United States, is preparing to transfer dozens of Leopard tanks, air defense systems and other equipment. The trophies of our troops in the Kursk region show that the invasion group of the Ukrainian Armed Forces was largely provided by NATO, which once again indicates the direct involvement of the Alliance in the war with Russia. The shelling of Kursk, Belgorod, and the DPR with Western weapons and the promotion of information about permission to strike our territories with air-launched missiles at ever greater depths also demonstrate that the North Atlantic Alliance does not feel any discomfort about the escalation of the conflict, while continuing to conduct military exercises near our borders, preparing its countries for mobilization and rebuilding military factories.

There are no grounds for an imminent end to the war. There are still many difficult days left before achieving the declared and periodically changing goals of the SVO, which range from the complete denazification and demilitarization of the entire Ukraine to the liberation of the territories of new regions from the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Meanwhile, the West is trying to wear down our military and economic potential on Ukraine, to destabilize the domestic political situation, which could be an even more serious threat to Russia. And the liberation of the Kursk region is not expected in the coming week.

The war will be long.

The summary was compiled by: Two majors

 

[Carolus]

54 minutes ago, Astrophel said:

Had Saddam cooperated with the UN arms inspectors and shown that he had no WMD there would have been no invasion.  Instead he chose to bluff it out - highly inadvisable versus an opponent holding all the high cards.

The US executive had CIA reports denying Saddam's possession of WMDs on their table months before Powell went to the UN. 

US intelligence basically begged the Bush administration not to do anything stupid.

They went ahead and did a stupid (or rather a coldly calculated breach of the UN charta)

However, unlike countries people often  compare the USA with as part of a "no u" game, the US administration was replaced with a new government and somehow people seem to forget how significant that is. 

(And democracy seems like such a wondeful gift, until you remember that the Americans chest-thumpingly said "Oh, so you snotty Europeans thought Bush Jr. was a stupid embarrassment on the world stage? Hah, how will you like this washed up TV personality that bankrupted a casino?")

[Butschi]

1 hour ago, Astrophel said:

Had Saddam cooperated with the UN arms inspectors and shown that he had no WMD there would have been no invasion.  Instead he chose to bluff it out - highly inadvisable versus an opponent holding all the high cards.

Alright, so had Putin simply told the world that he has evidence that Ukraine has WMDs and Ukraine refused to let in UN inspectors, because "we are a sovereign nation, f*** off)" the invasion would have been justified? Yeah, of course that is nonsense.

Or is it ok to blackmail and invade a sovereign nation without a UN mandate if the blackmailed is a dictator and the invader a democracy? (i.e. "because we are the good guys") Very slippery slope here.

Anyway, the point wasn't if Saddam could have prevented the invasion but if the war was to for US (or the wests interests) or for the benefit of the Iraqis.

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, Astrophel said:

Had Saddam cooperated with the UN arms inspectors and shown that he had no WMD there would have been no invasion.  Instead he chose to bluff it out - highly inadvisable versus an opponent holding all the high cards.

Yeah, it's sad that folks actually still believe such things given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, as the posts above mention.  Cheney et al knew they were lying about WMDs, knew they were conflating Iraq w 9-11 (no connection at all), and were fine selling those lies so they could get their war and get their hands on all that juicy oil and remake the middle east into the fantasy they carried around in their heads.  Turned out great though, right? Didn't it?  Was totally worth it?  

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours 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?

I recommend giving up.  Everybody knows how hard I've tried to have a reasonable discussion with ArmouredTopHat about this subject, but he has shown absolutely no interest in having an open debate.  There are several core points he absolutely will not address, some of which just yesterday I pointed out and he (once again) walked away from addressing them.  Most probably because he knows they are fatal to his point of view and yet he can't dispute them.

Steve

[The_Capt]

31 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I recommend giving up.  Everybody knows how hard I've tried to have a reasonable discussion with ArmouredTopHat about this subject, but he has shown absolutely no interest in having an open debate.  There are several core points he absolutely will not address, some of which just yesterday I pointed out and he (once again) walked away from addressing them.  Most probably because he knows they are fatal to his point of view and yet he can't dispute them.

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

44 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I recommend giving up.  Everybody knows how hard I've tried to have a reasonable discussion with ArmouredTopHat about this subject, but he has shown absolutely no interest in having an open debate.  There are several core points he absolutely will not address, some of which just yesterday I pointed out and he (once again) walked away from addressing them.  Most probably because he knows they are fatal to his point of view and yet he can't dispute them.

Steve

Literally addressed them numerous times, I just do not want to keep repeating the same thing. Because we have literally reached an impasse in this that has spanned numerous pages. People can claim I was 'hammered' all they like, does not change the reality on the ground. 

End of the day tanks are still being used and seen as valuable, which is enough for me.

I am always interested in debating tank stuff, and you can rest assured I am closely watching developments as they come in both tank and anti tank technology. There is no need to be rude about it as certain individuals have. 

*Edit* case in point is the clown above who does not even have the manners to directly talk to me. Shocking considering his age. 

Edited September 7 by ArmouredTopHat

[The_Capt]

52 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Yeah, it's sad that folks actually still believe such things given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, as the posts above mention.  Cheney et al knew they were lying about WMDs, knew they were conflating Iraq w 9-11 (no connection at all), and were fine selling those lies so they could get their war and get their hands on all that juicy oil and remake the middle east into the fantasy they carried around in their heads.  Turned out great though, right? Didn't it?  Was totally worth it?  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiasco:_The_American_Military_Adventure_in_Iraq

Matches some of stuff I was told by people I trust. Whole damn thing was a tragedy really. I know both US and Canadians who served in that mess…and the mess after it.

I am definitely an old cynic, guilty as charged. But just keep in mind that a lot of it is because I have seen the consequences up close.

[Letter from Prague]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

Or is it ok to blackmail and invade a sovereign nation without a UN mandate if the blackmailed is a dictator and the invader a democracy? (i.e. "because we are the good guys") Very slippery slope here.

Yes, because there are actual good guys and bad guys in the world.

Children think in fairy tales with clearly defined good and evil - good prince and evil witch.

Then they become teenagers, notice that there are shades of gray and for a time think that everything is relative and nobody is perfect and morality is just a game and nothing matters and this good and evil was just a thing of fairy tales and they are now so mature for seeing it as a lie, in this amoral, relativistic world.

Then they become adults and realize that yes - some things are relative, and yes - nobody really is perfect, and yes - sometimes people do things for many reasons at once, not all of them good - but that there is genuine good and evil in the world, genuine kindness and cruelty, genuine selflessness and selfishness and that the fairy tales had some point after all, even if the real world is infinitely more complex and unclear.

Some never reach that stage.

...

Let me ask you, were you against the evil US attacking innocent Serbia who only did a little oopsie too? Was it as bad as when Ukraine was invaded by Russia who also had all the excuses because US is as bad as Russia because Iraq or some ****?

Yes, US invaded Iraq on false pretenses and caused utmost destruction, but they took down a crazy dictator and spend crazy money trying to turn it into a modern state - even if that didn't really work. And while they were doing it, what was Germany doing? Schröder and Merkel were busy bankrolling Russian wars of aggression (in 1996, 1998, 2008, 2014 and 2022). And unlike Americans, who now almost all agree that the whole Iraq thing was bad idea, Germans seems to have learned nothing, looking at election results and the famous German diplomat saying "why would we send help, Ukraine won't exist soon" and million other things.

We have a saying in my language: sweep before your threshold first before complaining to others they have a mess.

[acrashb]

3 hours ago, Astrophel said:

Had Saddam cooperated with the UN arms inspectors and shown that he had no WMD there would have been no invasion.  Instead he chose to bluff it out - highly inadvisable versus an opponent holding all the high cards.

I'm not so sure.  Regarding why Saddam "bluffed it out", there's a credible strand of thought that he believed this would protect him from regional threats.
As for WMD alone, Bush's speech at the UN on 2002-09-12 listed five things that Iraq needed to do.  The public narrative coalesced onto nukes, but the other four might have been enough to bring MNF–I into Iraq.

Here are the five things:
"

 If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. 

"

[Andrew Kulin]

11 hours ago, Probus said:

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

Our Prime Minister has seen two of them, and well everyone knows what 2 + 16 equals, right?

[Butschi]

1 hour ago, Letter from Prague said:

 

1 hour ago, Letter from Prague said:

Yes, because there are actual good guys and bad guys in the world.

Children think in fairy tales with clearly defined good and evil - good prince and evil witch.

Then they become teenagers, notice that there are shades of gray and for a time think that everything is relative and nobody is perfect and morality is just a game and nothing matters and this good and evil was just a thing of fairy tales and they are now so mature for seeing it as a lie, in this amoral, relativistic world.

Then they become adults and realize that yes - some things are relative, and yes - nobody really is perfect, and yes - sometimes people do things for many reasons at once, not all of them good - but that there is genuine good and evil in the world, genuine kindness and cruelty, genuine selflessness and selfishness and that the fairy tales had some point after all, even if the real world is infinitely more complex and unclear.

Some never reach that stage.

...

Let me ask you, were you against the evil US attacking innocent Serbia who only did a little oopsie too? Was it as bad as when Ukraine was invaded by Russia who also had all the excuses because US is as bad as Russia because Iraq or some ****?

Yes, US invaded Iraq on false pretenses and caused utmost destruction, but they took down a crazy dictator and spend crazy money trying to turn it into a modern state - even if that didn't really work. And while they were doing it, what was Germany doing? Schröder and Merkel were busy bankrolling Russian wars of aggression (in 1996, 1998, 2008, 2014 and 2022). And unlike Americans, who now almost all agree that the whole Iraq thing was bad idea, Germans seems to have learned nothing, looking at election results and the famous German diplomat saying "why would we send help, Ukraine won't exist soon" and million other things.

We have a saying in my language: sweep before your threshold first before complaining to others they have a mess.

The thing with fairy tales is that they are not made by God or some other absolute moral entity but by mortal men who use(d) them to transport their own narrative of what is good and bad. At the end of the day, good and evil are concepts relative to the rules a society agrees on.

Now, on the one hand different societies have different concepts of good and evil. Seriously, most Nazis thought that what they were doing is gruesome but ultimately for the greater good. Everyone thinks they are the good guys and justify what they are doing that way.

But what's more, if you take all humanity as a single society, then we have defined our rules, good and evil, so to speak, on UN level. We all agreed that no nation is allowed to invade another sovereign nation with the exception of having a UN mandate for it.

Iraq 2003 was clearly against that rule. Ukraine 2022 was, too. Now, I am quite convinced that many Russians think they are the good guys here. And I've talked to enough Chinese guys to know that they feel absolutely justified to bring Taiwan back into the fold. And it really doesn't change anything that I as a German tell you this, because breaking the rules we all agreed on is simply not justified by others breaking them, too.

Anyway, we obviously have different opinions but let's keep the discussion civil, shall we?

Edited September 8 by Butschi

[ArmouredTopHat]

Wonder how this might pan out. 

[Joe982]

My fearless prediction.

If Harris wins the U.S. election, the oligarchs will move against Putin.

.

[LongLeftFlank]

10 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

End of the day tanks are still being used and seen as valuable, which is enough for me.
I am always interested in debating tank stuff, and you can rest assured I am closely watching developments as they come in both tank and anti tank technology. There is no need to be rude about it as certain individuals have. 

Oh, do keep debating; even if you're a layman, you do represent an important constituency. I know some ret. armoured officers who also believe in a robust future role for (ok, higher tech) tanks going forward, although I can't persuade them to join this board (bah! wargamers, armchair warriors, intel pukes).

That said, unlike yourself, they also agree that the formation level tactics they grew up with are basically dead.

... I personally have time for you even if we don't agree (do post more links and data though, not vids). So don't let anyone bully you off here, and if they prefer to Ignore, so what?

Rum, buggery and the lash....

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Oh, do keep debating; even if you're a layman, you do represent an important constituency. I know some ret. armoured officers who also believe in a robust future role for (ok, higher tech) tanks going forward, although I can't persuade them to join this board (bah! wargamers, armchair warriors, intel pukes).

That said, unlike yourself, they also agree that the formation level tactics they grew up with are basically dead.

... I personally have time for you even if we don't agree (do post more links and data though, not vids). So don't let anyone bully you off here, and if they prefer to Ignore, so what?

Rum, buggery and the lash....

Believe it or not, I am just as interested in figuring out what constitutes the ideal fighting force going forward, I just picture tanks being a part of it. Maybe its because I did a dissertation on tanks, I dont know. Its just my hunch when it comes to the role of the tank and how they have been used so far in this conflict. 

I have conceded numerous times that the tactical employment of tanks has clearly changed (I dont recall suggesting tanks were operating just fine in the 'traditional' concentrated way, or saying that was in fact a good idea), I just view that as a natural evolution instead of a dead end. Tanks have like many modern weapons systems will change in usage as new technological advancements come into play. I certainly dont see tanks charging around in armoured spearheads in most practical situations anymore outside of situations where an attacker has full spectrum dominance of a battlespace and can do so without risk. 

That being said, Tanks have survived and evolved despite HEAT rounds, ATGMs, attack helicopters, top attack munitions and all sorts of methods designed to deal with them. Cheap drones are just another hurdle to overcome. The Jury is out if this can be done practically I suppose, but I think it can. My personal gripe with some of the arguments is that they are eerily similar to the previous 'the tank is dead' arguments which turned out to be...well lets call it premature. That and the -constant- comparisons to battleships...even though the two have entirely different roles and are about as incomparable as cats to dogs. 

The base point is that until something supplants a tank in what it does (provide mobile, protected firepower) then its going to remain on the modern battlefield. This is the assessment made pretty much every military out there, including the two fighting this miserable war. The future might see such a role being taken over by unmanned systems, but we are still a considerable distance away from practical, true autonomous systems of such size. (Yes I know gun UGVs exist, but given their lack of widespread adoption and the fact they remain quite small and modestly armed, I imagine there is clearly some unresolved issues before they can be considered anywhere close to supplanting existing roles)

My other issue is that despite this being perhaps the most video recorded war in history, a lot happens that we dont know, or at least have considerably delayed time delay for details to emerge.

A great example is this:



This being a Russian T-80BVM taken out in 2022 by what is clearly a Sabot round by an AFU tank. We did not find this out until 2023 and it suggests we might be missing a fair amount of data when it comes to combat, even with all the drones flying around. Obviously the situation on the ground is ever evolving and this is just an anecdotal example. Others would the discovery of jet remains long after they have been shot down. Ukraine is a big place and despite the thousands of drones in the sky, things do get missed. We are but armchair analysts making our best deductions based on information we receive. Its far from a complete picture. 

I do appreciate the post though, I know I am fighting an uphill battle with some of the opinions here, but at least with the majority I can enjoy a reasonable debate. I certainly do enjoy debating with both Steve and yourself, and really short of one individual everyone has valid, useful points to contribute. There are absolutely important questions to ask both about design and employment of tanks, and we have a textbook user in this conflict that is demonstrating how -not- to use them properly and is paying the price for doing so. (The country's name rhymes with Prussia) 

With regards to data, I post what I can when I get it, but its clear any comprehensive dataset will be years away and only after the conflict is resolved. The best I can do in the meantime is trawl the information space and post relevant information when I receive it. I personally would love to sink my teeth into any comprehensive report that goes into detail with regards to what was knocking out tanks the most, similar to the studies the US performed post WW2. 

Edited September 8 by ArmouredTopHat

[ArmouredTopHat]

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1fbj2ps/ukrainian_tanks_attack_russian_position_near/

Speaking of the devil, have a pair of AFU tanks firing at near point blank on manned Russian positions near Bohdanivka. (You can see muzzle flashes of return fire from the positions, interesting choice for the defenders) I have noticed the AFU never operate more than a pair of tanks together in one spot, which is a good example of how dispersion has effected and changed tank employment. 

Certainly these videos give really good information to how the AFU employs its tanks tactically, and it sure seems that its paying off compared to the vastly fewer losses they have taken in tanks overall compared to the Russians. They certainly take far greater care in positioning and employing their tanks to minimise potential exposure to return fire, direct or indirect. (Bonus points for using smoke!)

Its one area where recon drones are fantastic in finding and guiding tanks to a good firing post to do their work.

You can also note arty is starting to land around them, which goes to show that anything really has a set 'loitering time' before its time to relocate and move. Something that tanks excel at!

 

Edited September 8 by ArmouredTopHat

[LongLeftFlank]

55 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Cheap drones are just another hurdle to overcome. The Jury is out if this can be done practically I suppose (I think it can) My personal gripe with some of the arguments is that they are eerily similar to the previous 'the tank is dead' arguments which turned out to be...well lets call it premature.

Cheers mate, understood and appreciated, so bash on regardless, but for avoidance of doubt, I remain fully in the 'twilight of the tank' camp.

Analogy salad:

1. It's a Swiss army knife, an expensive though still at times fit-for-purpose multitasker. In its narrowing number of viable roles today, it's competing with an entire toolbench of cheap on-call disposable razors, Exactos, ceramic ginsu knives and meat cleavers (all made in bloody China). These are available to targeteers with a far fuller situation awareness (and far less exposed to immediate danger) than a turret commander and gunner. Those alternatives seem to increase monthly (or at least quarterly).

2. Horse cavalry (von Pannwitz' Cossacks) proved bloody useful too on occasion, long after their 2 millennia as an army's default quick-response (generalist) scouts, harriers, flankers, line gap wideners and pursuers had clearly passed, in a growing hail of bullets. Did that justify keeping a horse cavalry arm in the saddle?

3. A little more niche, mule-ported 75mm pack howitzers (plus the US Army's 200 years of amazingly rich mule skinner know-how) likely could have come in handy during the late unpleasantness in the Hindukush on several occasions: ersatz firebase, with bonus direct fire capability (paging Slim Jim Gavin). But, man portable mortars, RPGs, RCLs, Javs/SMAWs, etc. And that's before we even call for (expensive) higher echelon support.

Etc. (flick by this guys, if you don't like it. I far prefer this topic to endless rehash of US DNC talking points on the Clear and Orange Danger).

Edited September 8 by LongLeftFlank

[ArmouredTopHat]

Very interesting report from some questionable mistakes from a new Russian commander.

Nicely highlights how mortar units in particular are under perilous threat from drones these days. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

31 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Cheers mate, understood and appreciated, so bash on regardless, but for avoidance of doubt, I remain fully in the 'twilight of the tank' camp.

Analogy salad:

1. It's a Swiss army knife, an expensive though still at times fit-for-purpose multitasker. In its narrowing number of viable roles today, it's competing with an entire toolbench of cheap on-call disposable razors, Exactos, ceramic ginsu knives and meat cleavers (all made in bloody China). These are available to targeteers with a far fuller situation awareness (and far less exposed to immediate danger) than a turret commander and gunner. Those alternatives seem to increase monthly (or at least quarterly).

2. Horse cavalry (von Pannwitz' Cossacks) proved bloody useful too on occasion, long after their 2 millennia as an army's default quick-response (generalist) scouts, harriers, flankers, line gap wideners and pursuers had clearly passed, in a growing hail of bullets. Did that justify keeping a horse cavalry arm in the saddle?

3. A little more niche, mule-ported 75mm pack howitzers (plus the US Army's 200 years of amazingly rich mule skinner know-how) likely could have come in handy during the late unpleasantness in the Hindukush on several occasions: ersatz firebase, with bonus direct fire capability (paging Slim Jim Gavin). But, man portable mortars, RPGs, RCLs, Javs/SMAWs, etc. And that's before we even call for (expensive) higher echelon support.

Etc. (flick by this guys, if you don't like it. I far prefer this topic to endless rehash of US DNC talking points on the Clear and Orange Danger).

You are of course, more than entitled to think that! There are certainly some valid arguments regarding the fate of the tank, its not like its a viewpoint argued without merit. 

To pry into this delicious analogy salad, these are all very valid points, I will try to address them in turn.

1. Very valid point that is perhaps going to determine the fate of the tank more than the other two points. I would argue though that modern tanks are not exactly the blind, stumbling vehicles they once were. In fact, modern vehicles typically have pretty excellent awareness optic wise, especially on the long range acquisition front. This is assuming things like good generation thermals are in use of course, ideally with a CITV in addition to the gunnery optics. 

I think the key differential here is that tanks not only have the means to spot targets at good ranges, but then also quickly engage them. Its a dramatically shorter kill chain that is critically important on the modern battlefield where time is so crucial due to the fast pace of combat. A sabot round arrives faster than an airstrike (Or an FPV drone for a more relevant example) to put it simple terms. 

2. The cavalry comparison is...difficult to really match up. Cavalry certainly had the mobility of a tank, but it does not have the firepower or protection element at all that made the former so increasingly useless in the face of modern warfare. Its that often quoted trinity of elements combined with technology with fire control and ergonomics that makes a tank so dangerous on the field of battle. 

3. Sure, there are -lots- of alternative weapon systems out there, many of which are perfectly capable of doing at least some things a tank can do, but perhaps crucially, not all. There are also gaps as well. Man portable weapons have the downside of being operated by squishy humans in the open, and squishy humans are still more vulnerable on the battlefield than anyone clad in a vehicle simply due to the risk of death by shrapnel. 

The core point here is that tanks occupy an area which nothing else quite fits into. An IFV does not have enough armoured protection in comparison for instance. We have seen militaries dabble with different vehicles for fire support elements and they usually always come back to the MBT concept. Anything lighter is more vulnerable to a wider range of threats and so comes with the expectation that they cannot be operated in the same was a true tank. 

As Chieftain has stated quite wisely, tanks will remain on the battlefield so long as there is a requirement for them. I suspect this will remain the case even with what will likely be a significant change in doctrine and tactical employment going forward. Now, if a major country starts putting out signs that they are drastically rethinking about bothering with tanks at all, I would be a lot more swayed. For the moment, we are getting more or less the opposite. 

Edited September 8 by ArmouredTopHat

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

I know some ret. armoured officers who also believe in a robust future role for (ok, higher tech) tanks going forward, although I can't persuade them to join this board (bah! wargamers, armchair warriors, intel pukes).

Armored officers thinking there is a robust future role for the tank: shocking. I know plenty of other officers who would disagree, including this retired one.

As to their attitude towards wargaming - not surprised there either. Of course simulation and wargaming are really the only way to determine a future role for the tank (or not) before the next war happens. Why would we ever want to explore that?

[LongLeftFlank]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Very interesting report from some questionable mistakes from a new Russian commander.

Nicely highlights how mortar units in particular are under perilous threat from drones these days. 

Agreed, and this is an Ivan who claims he has been there since the start, so 'more casualties in the last 3 weeks than in 2.5 years' is.... favourable. Mind you, it seems to cut both ways to some extent.

My preferred solution to your 'vulnerable squishies' point remains some kind of man covering kevlar ghillie suit/cloak that the West can still crank out in bulk (Plastics!!!!). Won't stop direct hits, but definitely helps with frags and splashes (e.g. grenade droppers). Bonus, keeps out the cold and helps with concealment/ intrenchment. And you can lay out flimsy dummies galore....

(And far cheaper than putting a 20 tonne machine around said squishies, but we've been through that one repeatedly. This viddy from yesterday could support either argument)

https://t.me/Tourists51/250

....But I suppose we'll need to wait for the guys at the sharp end to ask for this kind of 'clothing', which make no mistake is not especially light.

****

P.S.  

Also, in the absence (hoping he's OK) of Brother @Haiduk and our other Eastern European correspondents (sacred EU holidays), I notice from the imaged anecdata an uptick in RU semi-pointless terror shelling of metro Kherson over the last 2 days, although they lost another Pion for their trouble.  Presumably this is an attempt to distract UA counterbattery resources from another imminent push in Donetsk.

...Piles of aerial-based glide-bombs incoming in the last few weeks too, in the Donetsk direction. I had heard rumour that was going to become rather more hazardous for the VVS imminently, but it's possible the Ukes have their eyes on more strategic targets.

Edited September 8 by LongLeftFlank