How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

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....

Big problem with this concept is weight. You are basically describing a bomb suit (a la Hurt Locker). A frat vest without plates for bullets is still heavy. Wearing one over the entire body like a onesie is going to weight a lot.  Next problem…how do soldiers move with all this weight? Average modern western soldier is already carrying 70-90 pounds of gear into battle.

Add in long term costs (blown knees and backs…VA claims will skyrocket) and the solution becomes pretty dodgy. I think we will either need new lightweight frag catching material, or power armor to ensure mobility.

Next problem, FPVs are no longer dropping grenades (so 2023), they are mounting RPG rounds. It is not practical to armor up a soldier individually against that. 

[poesel]

41 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Next problem, FPVs are no longer dropping grenades (so 2023), they are mounting RPG rounds. It is not practical to armor up a soldier individually against that. 

Do they? I have recently noticed the lack of those videos. But since I did not actively hunt for them I thought the videos had just gone out of fashion.

Why did they stop? Seemed pretty useful.

[The_Capt]

Just now, poesel said:

Do they? I have recently noticed the lack of those videos. But since I did not actively hunt for them I thought the videos had just gone out of fashion.

Why did they stop? Seemed pretty useful.

I think some are still doing it but the concept looks like it has evolved. Grenade dropping looked like it was targeting already abandoned vehicles - recall the famous hatch dropping streams from early on. The latest scourge which really looks like it took off in late '23/early '24 was to strap a HEAT round onto an FPV and fly it directly into the target. More active and dynamic than passive.

For the longest time we were seeing FPV strikes of all sorts when the RA was trying to close the deal at Adiivka. Then over the summer, from the videos at least, it looks like the UA has shifted to anti-pers. This latest with thermite and more videos of flying after RA squads supports this, but again we only see what is put up there.

Next step in evolution might be stand-off. We have already seen minewarfare via UAS but I suspect we may see more complex standoff weapons (eg ATGMs) being mounted with the UAS becoming a delivery/carry system. I suspect the FPVs will stay in the game but more systems will get layered onto them.

What we have not seen yet is a side solving for offence using massed UAS in combination with other systems. Here the problem may be enemy dispersion and there own denial/defensive systems - very hard to find UAS operators in a basement be they RA or UA. Minefield breaching is the other problem - and talk about something armored corps all over the world wished away for decades.

What we do know it that cheap and many are dominating this thing right now, and that is not likely to change anytime soon.

[LongLeftFlank]

51 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Next problem, FPVs are no longer dropping grenades (so 2023), they are mounting RPG rounds. It is not practical to armor up a soldier individually against that. 

Not sure re average throw weights of drone weaponry these days; the UA seems a good bit ahead of the curve, while the Russians still seem to be using grenades. But yeah, anecdata as usual.

Your point on body weight is key, and likely a key barrier to adoption (I'm under no illusions that I am the first rando ever to think of something like this btw).

So to address that specific objection, we'd need to ask if there's anything worth 'trading' in that 70lbs of kit for a 'drop and cover' cloak?

....which, as freely admitted, is almost never going to shrug off the rifle round or shaped charge with your name on it.

So then we need to analysis to determine how many infantry 200s/300s come from direct hits or very large nearby blasts.

Might it perhaps turn out that many of those heavy ceramic plates aren't actually all that protective when playing drop-and-pop out in the fields and ditches? as opposed to close assaults, room-clearing, etc.

Like you, I don't go out of my way to watch gory kill vids, but I've seen enough of them to see drone victims dropped to the ground by fragments, rolling around in pain. The hamstrings seem especially vulnerable, and that area bleeds copiously. Plus, you now have a medevac who can't walk.

Anyway, look, I'm not stuck on this as a panacea, so spare me the usual smack talk (or don't, wev). I've just never seen a very decisive 'why not' on this issue. Warriors have gone out in cloaks since the dawn of man. In the age of musketry and C4, sure, practical protective value went to zero. Now? We are back in a foggy space.

...And TBH, if this war has now become mainly a competitive body count to see who faints first, it may be worth studying actionable measures that could tilt the balance, even if quickly copied.

[poesel]

Agree. Just thought about another thing: maybe they got wise enough not to use open trenches anymore?

Because, even given the things you said above, dropping bombs from a FPV is a mortar mans wet dream (even though the ammo is limited).

[Offshoot]

25 minutes ago, poesel said:

Do they? I have recently noticed the lack of those videos. But since I did not actively hunt for them I thought the videos had just gone out of fashion.

Why did they stop? Seemed pretty useful.

There are still videos being released where they are used, especially to finish off scattered infantry after attacks have been thwarted. But recent videos also often show artillery thrown into the mix as well. The rise in prevalence of grenade-dropping drones happened partly to make up for a shortage of artillery shells, so perhaps they aren't as essential now and the drones are better used as FPVs.

[The_Capt]

30 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Not sure re average throw weights of drone weaponry these days; the UA seems a good bit ahead of the curve, while the Russians still seem to be using grenades. But yeah, anecdata as usual.

Your point on body weight is key, and likely a key barrier to adoption (I'm under no illusions that I am the first rando ever to think of something like this btw).

So to address that specific objection, we'd need to ask if there's anything worth 'trading' in that 70lbs of kit for a 'drop and cover' cloak?

....which, as freely admitted, is almost never going to shrug off the rifle round or shaped charge with your name on it.

So then we need to analysis to determine how many infantry 200s/300s come from direct hits or very large nearby blasts.

Might it perhaps turn out that many of those heavy ceramic plates aren't actually all that protective when playing drop-and-pop out in the fields and ditches? as opposed to close assaults, room-clearing, etc.

Like you, I don't go out of my way to watch gory kill vids, but I've seen enough of them to see drone victims dropped to the ground by fragments, rolling around in pain. The hamstrings seem especially vulnerable, and that area bleeds copiously. Plus, you now have a medevac who can't walk.

Anyway, look, I'm not stuck on this as a panacea, so spare me the usual smack talk (or don't, wev). I've just never seen a very decisive 'why not' on this issue. Warriors have gone out in cloaks since the dawn of man. In the age of musketry and C4, sure, practical protective value went to zero. Now? We are back in a foggy space.

...And TBH, if this war has now become mainly a competitive body count to see who faints first, it may be worth studying actionable measures that could tilt the balance, even if quickly copied.

I only use smack talk when 1) someone has a truly stupid idea, and/or 2) they take on an aggressive tone with respect to that truly stupid idea that requires a response .

You post does not meet either of those requirements (but you do continue to exude that "cleverest cool kid in the back" schtick that we have all grown to know and love.)

So average modern soldier - at least before this war - was looking at:

Body frag vest with plates - comes in at around 30-40 pound depending on the size.

Helmet - 3-5 pounds

Weapons - 6-7 pounds for the rifle, pistol maybe 2 - lets call it 10 pounds.

Ammo - ten mags at least (more if you can) at 1.5 pounds each = 15 pounds.

Nades x 2 - 2 pounds

Med kit - 2 pounds

Water - 2-4 pounds (higher is with camelback...but you have to love drinking piss warm water by lunchtime).

Extra crap (compass, patrol radio, mouthguard for road moves, and bayonet) - 3-5 pounds.

Taking mid-ranges and leaving out luxuries like: extra socks, sun/bug juice, raingear, short flip knife to cut yourself out of a burning vehicle and most of your youthful sense of hope = 68 pounds (and this is not taking into account the uniform and boots).

Now this is for a box standard dog-faced dirt walking officer. LMG gunners, grenadiers and real infantry solders who carry things like a lot more ammo and M72s are looking northward towards 100 pounds.

So looking at all that, and we know that frag is the main source of WIA and KIA in war since WW1, one would really need to decide what to cut. Could toss the plates - they weight 10-15 pounds. But bullets can still bite, so there is that. SOF guys have lighter ones but they are very expensive and manufacture is a problem.

We have seen pics of cloaks. They might be a good idea for camo and lowering profile. To try and make one frag resistant would need some sort of new lightweight material that can do what a blast blanket can do, but weigh a small fraction of that.

Other problem with cloaks - despite what the movies say - is that they tend to flap around and get caught on stuff. So you would need to be able to roll them up to a small volume quickly. My sense is that a cloak is better to simply not get spotted as opposed to trying to make some sort of portable bunker. Problem there is once you get up and move...which one tends to have to do from time to time. 

The old fashion way was to stick all those soldiers in a bit metal mobile box and barf them out onto the enemy. But that doesn't work like it used to. Dispersion seems to be the order of the day, and for infantry that means dismounted and spread out.

Not sure if there really is an easy solution to this one. Someone is going to cry "EW!" but the problem is not just drones strikes (gawd, how many times do I have to say that?). It is the ISR. Drones can stand off a long way and paint an entire area. Once you get lit up, our old dear friend artillery - who does not give a flying fig about EW - is going to drop on your head and ruin a perfectly crappy day. 

When this whole thing started it became apparent quickly that we were going to need to rethink some stuff with respect to mechanized warfare. What I did not expect is that we may have to rethink some stuff with respect to dismounted infantry as well. So while some folks are clinging onto their little tank teddy bears, hoping for "something," the reality is this whole ride is not even close to over yet. The pendulum will swing but my sinking suspicion is that we are in very early days and the final plateau could be very far from where we started.  

  

[The_Capt]

59 minutes ago, poesel said:

Agree. Just thought about another thing: maybe they got wise enough not to use open trenches anymore?

Because, even given the things you said above, dropping bombs from a FPV is a mortar mans wet dream (even though the ammo is limited).

Seen a lot of complex underground Russian trench videos. Problem with fully covered trenches is that they are really much harder/longer to construct. And firing out of them takes a lot more planning.

But between the grenade dropping, dialed in mortars and freakin thermite, I am afraid you may be correct. 

[Hapless]

Meanwhile, in Latvia:

Russian drones doing squirrelly **** over the Polish or Romanian borders to get around Ukrainian air defences makes some sense. It's a very lost drone that finds itself heading for the Baltic instead of the Black Sea...

Edited September 8 by Hapless

[chris talpas]

Latest Perun drop discussing the Russian economy.  He assesses enough capacity to keep the war effort going in the short to mid term but big issues around labour shortages, inflation and large deficits.

 

[Kraft]

3 hours ago, poesel said:

Do they? I have recently noticed the lack of those videos. But since I did not actively hunt for them I thought the videos had just gone out of fashion.

Why did they stop? Seemed pretty useful.

They still exist but I see them used more for trickshots and low value equiptment lying around. Since FPVs are not in shortage, the "preservation" aspect is not as valuable as it once was, often it may be better to blow up and fly with a new drone, rather than fly back, reload and back to the enemy.

Also, since the video quality is **** and the drone usually doesnt capture the juicy mobiksplosion, they dont appeal/spread as good as the 4k cam dropper with optical stabilized zoom filming from above - or the album cover worthy last fpv frame.

Unless with 'fpv' all drones are meant, in which case its wrong. Depends on the drone unit what they use.

Edited September 8 by Kraft

[Battlefront.com]

18 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Literally addressed them numerous times, I just do not want to keep repeating the same thing.

To the best of my recollection you have NEVER addressed, in any meaningful way, the issues of cost and production constraints.  Especially when imagining all the super expensive things that you talk about being developed and deployed on top of everything else.

Case in point is the Dutch decision to acquire 50 Leopards at a cost of about $20m each.  JUST for the tanks, not to mention having to recreate the infrastructure to support them, the higher per unit carrying costs, and all the stuff that they will need to add onto them in the future.

For the same acquisition cost, but far less in carrying costs, they could acquire 100 CV-90s or 200 MRAP type vehicles.  They could also have vast quantities of drones, artillery systems, and munitions for the same amount of money.

We know from this war that the skeptics of NATO's late and post Cold War national policies were correct.  Which is that wars of attrition are still possible and that NATO's combined inventory and production capacity aren't geared for such wars.  The need for maintaining sufficient inventory ahead of such a conflict should not be discarded.

When combined, a small nation like The Netherlands would be better served by having a broader, deeper means of servicing its infantry in a way that this war has shown is the most effective.  Namely, a means of keeping the infantry safe during transit and to provide them with "endless" standoff capabilities (artillery and drones.  MBTs are completely unnecessary for this and, due to their extremely high price tags and extremely low production rates, are in fact harmful to it.

This is in addition to all of the practical and pragmatic reasons to suggest the near future offers cheaper, more effective, and easier to produce alternatives for the direct fire and support roles of the MBTs.

 

18 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

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

Up until a few years ago I was still using gas and oil lamps for light at a remote cabin.  It was good enough for me too, but I was never under the illusion that it was the best solution.  Solar panels, batteries, and DC LEDs have since replaced them.

The point I, and others, have made is that there are practical, pragmatic, and even dogmatic reasons for the continued use for MBTs.  I believe that desperation and necessity make a poor foundation for decision making.

18 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

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

I thought you said there is no reason to be rude?

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I only use smack talk when 1) someone has a truly stupid idea, and/or 2) they take on an aggressive tone with respect to that truly stupid idea that requires a response .

You post does not meet either of those requirements (but you do continue to exude that "cleverest cool kid in the back" schtick that we have all grown to know and love.)

So average modern soldier - at least before this war - was looking at:

Body frag vest with plates - comes in at around 30-40 pound depending on the size.

Helmet - 3-5 pounds

Weapons - 6-7 pounds for the rifle, pistol maybe 2 - lets call it 10 pounds.

Ammo - ten mags at least (more if you can) at 1.5 pounds each = 15 pounds.

Nades x 2 - 2 pounds

Med kit - 2 pounds

Water - 2-4 pounds (higher is with camelback...but you have to love drinking piss warm water by lunchtime).

Extra crap (compass, patrol radio, mouthguard for road moves, and bayonet) - 3-5 pounds.

Taking mid-ranges and leaving out luxuries like: extra socks, sun/bug juice, raingear, short flip knife to cut yourself out of a burning vehicle and most of your youthful sense of hope = 68 pounds (and this is not taking into account the uniform and boots).

Now this is for a box standard dog-faced dirt walking officer. LMG gunners, grenadiers and real infantry solders who carry things like a lot more ammo and M72s are looking northward towards 100 pounds.

So looking at all that, and we know that frag is the main source of WIA and KIA in war since WW1, one would really need to decide what to cut. Could toss the plates - they weight 10-15 pounds. But bullets can still bite, so there is that. SOF guys have lighter ones but they are very expensive and manufacture is a problem.

We have seen pics of cloaks. They might be a good idea for camo and lowering profile. To try and make one frag resistant would need some sort of new lightweight material that can do what a blast blanket can do, but weigh a small fraction of that.

Other problem with cloaks - despite what the movies say - is that they tend to flap around and get caught on stuff. So you would need to be able to roll them up to a small volume quickly. My sense is that a cloak is better to simply not get spotted as opposed to trying to make some sort of portable bunker. Problem there is once you get up and move...which one tends to have to do from time to time. 

The old fashion way was to stick all those soldiers in a bit metal mobile box and barf them out onto the enemy. But that doesn't work like it used to. Dispersion seems to be the order of the day, and for infantry that means dismounted and spread out.

Not sure if there really is an easy solution to this one. Someone is going to cry "EW!" but the problem is not just drones strikes (gawd, how many times do I have to say that?). It is the ISR. Drones can stand off a long way and paint an entire area. Once you get lit up, our old dear friend artillery - who does not give a flying fig about EW - is going to drop on your head and ruin a perfectly crappy day. 

When this whole thing started it became apparent quickly that we were going to need to rethink some stuff with respect to mechanized warfare. What I did not expect is that we may have to rethink some stuff with respect to dismounted infantry as well. So while some folks are clinging onto their little tank teddy bears, hoping for "something," the reality is this whole ride is not even close to over yet. The pendulum will swing but my sinking suspicion is that we are in very early days and the final plateau could be very far from where we started.  

  

The future for protecting infantry seems to be headed towards:

1.  Exoskeletons to overcome the Human body's natural limitations

2.  Increased use of unmanned systems to reduce the exposure of Humans to direct harm

The concept of building a better and more robust form of traditional mechanized combined arms just doesn't seem practical any more because at its core it relies on concentration of mass.  That concentration of mass, as we've discussed endlessly here, is a bad idea from the outset.

Steve

[The_Capt]

Just now, Battlefront.com said:

The future for protecting infantry seems to be headed towards:

1.  Exoskeletons to overcome the Human body's natural limitations

2.  Increased use of unmanned systems to reduce the exposure of Humans to direct harm

The concept of building a better and more robust form of traditional mechanized combined arms just doesn't seem practical any more because at its core it relies on concentration of mass.  That concentration of mass, as we've discussed endlessly here, is a bad idea from the outset.

Steve

There is also prosthetics, drugs and genetic engineering. But there are some ethical hurdles with those…well at least for some nations.

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

As Chieftain has stated quite wisely, tanks will remain on the battlefield so long as there is a requirement for them.

As much as I respect and enjoy The Chieftain's videos, he is not an unbiased source for this discussion.  It's like going to a priest and asking if God exists.  The answer is predictable and based on faith, not fact.

Second, he is correct only if by "requirement" he means it in terms of policy.  Policy is not always well informed nor is it divorced from potentially counter productive/harmful political and economic considerations that have nothing to do with sound military needs.

6 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

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. 

Which gets into the realities of the military industrial complex's hold on policy and their very real reasons to keep nations focused on MBTs and other expensive systems.  Which is one of the points you have struggled to address aside from saying we should have "faith" in said system to do what is right.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

38 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

There is also prosthetics, drugs and genetic engineering. But there are some ethical hurdles with those…well at least for some nations.

Yeah, the cyborg type stuff is certainly technically feasible, but I don't see it being a significant factor for a very long time.

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

58 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I thought you said there is no reason to be rude?

If someone is going to call me a tankie, a stooge / idiot and a literal 'agent' of the tank agenda in military circles (Whatever the frick that means, his words) just because I have a different opinion to him that is really not unreasonable, then they lose all courtesy from me. Said clown decided to escalate to that level and until I get an apology from someone who should really know better at their age, I will not be especially inclined to treat them with the same courtesy everyone else gives one another here. I have nothing against them but when they continue to refer to me indirectly and tell others 'not to bother' with anything I have to say, I get a little miffed. This is literally some playground scuffle rubbish. A grown man in their elder years should know better, but that's his call to make. I simply expected better from someone who has a lot to contribute here. 
 

58 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

To the best of my recollection you have NEVER addressed, in any meaningful way, the issues of cost and production constraints.  Especially when imagining all the super expensive things that you talk about being developed and deployed on top of everything else.

Okay, allow me to go through the numerous points that I have brought up in the past regarding the issue of cost to settle this properly then. 

1. Tanks as a weapon system are expensive, but much like how a fighter jet is expensive, you are paying for capability that you otherwise would not have. Again the core argument is that a tank provides something that other things cannot. A bunch of FPV strikes does not provide the same capability as a tank, it is literally a munition with different methods of employment. 

2. There is plenty that can be done to reduce costs of tanks (And weapon systems in general) The chief NATO issue is lack of widescale production. In the past we had little issue producing shed loads of tanks that were for their time top of the line, a lot of reasons for that include production of scale. Much like how F-35 is surprisingly cheap despite its capability due to scaling. An approach for a tank platform would work the same way and in my view this is required given your very true concerns about deep stock reserves. High intensity warfare very much eats up stocks quickly. 

3. Costs of tank platforms can be cut. Reducing the overall size of the vehicle by removing a crewmen in place of an autoloader cuts both training costs by 25% as well as reducing the size of the tank in question, which means a cheaper protection scheme with less surface area to cover. There is absolutely a lot that can be done to reduce tank costs that should be considered. 

4. A broad look at vehicle costs overall points to the fact that tanks are really not all that more significantly expensive than other assets. CV90s are around 9 mil per unit according to this. Military equipment is expensive and complicated but this does not change the value that they provide on the battlefield. If its more cost efficient to go nothing but drones, why has no country done so? Why cant they do both? Cost is not the only concern when it comes to capability or effectiveness on the battlefield. 

5. You get what you pay for. Sure, a western MBT is expensive, but its also more survivable, more effective and has a better chance of keeping the even more valuable crew alive when the vehicle takes a hit. We know this from Ukrainian sources that western vehicles are far more survivable both for the platform itself and for the people inside, which to me is a perfect justification of cost. It is -worth- paying that price if it means more people are coming home to fight another day. The alternative is whatever the hell Russia is doing. 

 

58 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

When combined, a small nation like The Netherlands would be better served by having a broader, deeper means of servicing its infantry in a way that this war has shown is the most effective.  Namely, a means of keeping the infantry safe during transit and to provide them with "endless" standoff capabilities (artillery and drones.  MBTs are completely unnecessary for this and, due to their extremely high price tags and extremely low production rates, are in fact harmful to it.

If this theory of how to proceed with regards to military approach is so infallible, why has no one pushed for it? We have numerous independent militaries who are actively expanding their arsenals do nothing of the sort. Are they all idiots? We talked about this before but to assume the military apparatus is all wrong and this armchair community is in fact right instead is perhaps a little arrogant no?

I think the point of contention overall here is the assumption that because traditional methods of mechanised warfare are less practical on the whole (though not impossible as we see at Kursk at least in some rendition) this makes tanks and vehicles less useful. I disagree with this completely given the use of said vehicles regardless, and the attitudes from both sides regarding them. Again, none of you have pointed to a source in either military that has claimed its tanks are useless and that they should not bother. Instead both are actively clamouring to get as many tanks into their arsenals as possible. Tanks are used quite a bit differently, but their value is still very much there.

Ukraine is still making and refurbing tanks at great risk and cost (the recent Iskander strike on a tank plant actively in use proves that) even as they focus on making literally hundreds of thousands of FPV drones. Clearly they see value in the platform despite the utility of a drone. Why would they bother otherwise?
 

58 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is in addition to all of the practical and pragmatic reasons to suggest the near future offers cheaper, more effective, and easier to produce alternatives for the direct fire and support roles of the MBTs.

Such as? We covered UGVs before (too premature to be a viable solution right now, not to mention there is nothing in development with actual heavy weaponry)

We have seen lighter vehicles attempted for support roles, but these come at the expense of protection and have thus never truly supplanted tanks in their primary roles and instead fill the void in areas where tanks are less suited (difficult terrain for instance)

Edited September 8 by ArmouredTopHat

[zinz]

Problem with bomber kind of drones that they need to return and be reloaded. Exposing the handling crew at every round trip to being detected. So for shorter ranges fpvs seem to be preferred currently. Bigger drones that do drops like baba yaga are still very much around. Though relatively few videos are released off their activities compared to how much the Russians are complaining about them. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

13 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

As much as I respect and enjoy The Chieftain's videos, he is not an unbiased source for this discussion.  It's like going to a priest and asking if God exists.  The answer is predictable and based on faith, not fact.

Second, he is correct only if by "requirement" he means it in terms of policy.  Policy is not always well informed nor is it divorced from potentially counter productive/harmful political and economic considerations that have nothing to do with sound military needs.

I mean sure, he absolutely is biased but I dont think they reduces the point he makes. He's pointed out plenty of tank flaws in the past but his overall reasoning for why tanks are around is pretty much on point. I simply do not see that changing for a while yet.  As I said, the second a country decides to take a radical change in course regarding tanks I will be far more willing to acquiesce to the notion that a radical rethink is needed. Until then I see tanks doing what they did before alongside all other modern weapons: Evolve. This might reach a point where they do in fact hit a dead end, but I think we are far away from that (for now!)

Who knows in a few decades though. 

Edited September 8 by ArmouredTopHat

[The_Capt]

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I thought you said there is no reason to be rude?

And name calling too…must have hit a nerve.

Just for giggle let’s review the arguments for tanks:

- rare video footage of their use in this war

- Kursk, proving that they have utility on an undefended border.

- Nations are still buying them…look at the Dutch!

- Tanks have been declared dead and before…and everyone who said that was wrong.

- Firepower!! Nothing say “boom” like tankies.

- Drones are simply a challenge that will be overcome…and tanks will be back baby.

- Tank cannot be replaced until something else can do the job of the tank.

- Tanks are not being employed properly in this war because after 2+ years neither side knows how.  We, of course, will be just fine because we have mission command (or some other excuse).

- “What about logistical vulnerabilities”….crickets…hey look another couple UA tanks sniping something!

I am probably missing one or two but these are the main ones. They get recycled and repainted but these are the central planks of an argument that is frankly sounding more and more desperate over time. Dress it up - toss in some more single point examples…but that is about it.

Now the counter-points, which never really get addressed

- Employment of tanks in this war is nowhere near the scope and scale armor was designed for. Nor does it match the terrain or capabilities which either side has. We have not seen a major action involving tanks above the troop/company level. Both sides have relegated the beast to indirect fire support, sniping c-moves and assault gun work - again in ones and twos.

- Kursk…just stop it. You are embarrassing yourself.

- Despite my deep faith in Dutch DoD - militaries have long histories of buying the wrong stuff at the wrong time. Or perhaps the Dutch have actually solved the problem. Either way, someone buying or doing something is not a sign it is a good idea. When I was growing up every kid played in the car back window because seat belts “trapped you”. All the while parents smoked us into a nicotine high…and we were having fun watching Dad, four beers in, try to stay awake.  (This, by the way is a straw man…but a good one).

- Tanks were declared dead before…and my working theory is that they likely were. Since the ATGM revolution of the early 70s we have no real peer wars that highlight the continued use of tanks as envisioned. We have Iran and Iraq, but neither side had well developed tank doctrine nor manoeuvre warfare. And that war, like this one, was dominated by attrition…and they had tanks…not a good sign. And then there is the Persian Gulf. Tanks and mech definitely worked there, but 1) it was after a month of total air dominance and 2) against the f#cking Iraqis again. We never employed our tank doctrines against an opponent designed to counter them.  So we really don’t know if the tank has been dead since the 70s or not.

- Firepower. Maybe, in some pretty specific circumstances. Fires seem to be moving to beyond LOS. Direct fires are not gone but they are also not looking decisive. By the time a side gets into DF range a lot of the work is done already. Further, the things that can stop a tank/mech have greater ranges and lower profiles than those systems right now. Firepower is also looking more and more disaggregated. Putting all ones firepower into a dozen single platforms with LOS ranges of maybe 3kms does not appear to be a very good idea when other systems can find, fix and finish at 10-15kms.

- The tank is being replaced. Firepower and mobility can be delivered by other systems better right now. Survivability has gone unmanned, cheap and many. What is missing is range. A tank can still drive further than UAS, guns and even missiles. So long as it has logistical support.

- Drones will somehow go away. Well while searching for nations still buying tanks, maybe spend a bit of time looking at nations investing in unmanned systems. I mean if one can take the time out of one’s busy day searching for Ukraine tank videos:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/stocks/RTX-N/pressreleases/28383214/global-military-drone-industry-seeing-rapid-technological-advancements-as-market-growth-accelerates/

I am no business guru but that CAGR (13.8%) is higher than projections for the IT sector(11%):

 https://www.businessresearchinsights.com/market-reports/information-technology-it-market-108885#:~:text=Information Technology (IT) Market REPORT OVERVIEW&text=The global information technology (IT,11.0% during the forecast period.

Meanwhile military land vehicles are coming in at about 7.4% - and note that the market is already about half the military drone market ($36b vs $16b). It is amazing what one can find on the internet when not solely focused on tank porn in order to support foregone conclusions.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/latest-global-military-land-vehicles-163000489.html

So what? Well at those investment levels which technology do you think is going to accelerate faster?

- “Ukraine and Russia just don’t know how to use tanks.” Given the above, not sure why they want to put the time and effort, but let’s play ball. I may have bought this reason for 2022 but both sides have had years to figure out the dark enigma that is armored warfare. Both sides have spent hundreds of billions on this war and have all the motivation in the world to solve for employment of tanks. So do we think it may be possible, just maybe, that they know something we don’t? I mean maybe the Dutch do as well but given the amount of combat time, I am leaning towards the two nations in the largest conventional war in Europe since WW2.

- And logistics….still crickets. We’ll just put that one on the shelf with “solve for drones”, hope and prayer. I mean we definitely need tanks so someone will figure that one out.

This has become like trying to debate with a Jehovah Witness on the existence of…well Jehovah. Some people want tanks so badly that they are bending reality to make them fit. This is not logic, reason, analysis or assessment - it is faith. And I learned a long time ago that there is no point really trying to argue with faith. Faith doesn’t play by the rules. It starts with a conclusion and then all roads run to that conclusion. This is not discourse or useful subjective thinking, it is preaching while trying to convert.

Regardless, the whole tank thing is frankly dumb. We have much bigger issues right now than a lone land platform. Some pretty fundamental principles are in the wind. Entire military systems are shaky. So if a poster wants to keep promoting a single issue - like a gun nut in a debate about childcare - well so be it. But this particular clown is going to continue to ignore - except on lazy Sundays when I am bored.

[The_Capt]

16 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yeah, the cyborg type stuff is certainly technically feasible, but I don't see it being a significant factor for a very long time.

Steve

I thought so too but some weird noises are being made out there:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/europe/french-army-soldiers-technology-ethics-scli-intl-scn/index.html

[ArmouredTopHat]

41 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

And name calling too…must have hit a nerve.

Just for giggle let’s review the arguments for tanks:

You literally started this crap mate. 

Holy hell your attitude is just childish at this point.

 

41 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

rare video footage of their use in this war

rare = everyday videos apparently. 
 

41 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Direct fires are not gone but they are also not looking decisive. By the time a side gets into DF range a lot of the work is done already. Further, the things that can stop a tank/mech have greater ranges and lower profiles than those systems right now. Firepower is also looking more and more disaggregated. Putting all ones firepower into a dozen single platforms with LOS ranges of maybe 3kms does not appear to be a very good idea when other systems can find, fix and finish at 10-15kms.

Direct fire engagements at short range are a constant feature of this war. I am honestly not sure what else to tell you at this point. Not everything is happening at max range. 
 

41 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Kursk, proving that they have utility on an undefended border.

Oh so what shot up a platoon of BTR-4s in Kursk then? The spirit of Stalin? If I have to hear one more silly comment about Kursk being undefended I might blow a gasket. Were the AFU fighting ghosts in the first week? You are the one that really needs to stop being this silly just because Ukraine demonstrated it was able to fight a mobile war capability despite your holier than thou opinion that this was meant to be impossible.
 

41 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Nations are still buying them…look at the Dutch!

Do the Dutch, Lithuanians, Polish not count or something? Let alone orders of tanks elsewhere with South Korea, China ect

 

41 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

- And logistics….still crickets. We’ll just put that one on the shelf with “solve for drones”, hope and prayer. I mean we definitely need tanks so someone will figure that one out.

You literally got disintegrated on this point numerous times (not by me) after claiming that nothing was able to move 2km from the front, despite the Russians literally being able to do so at Avdiivka and other areas despite this 'ISR dominance' and the prevailing threat of drones. You have never been able to prove that logistics in this war have been interdicted to the point of preventing mechanised operations and were routinely slaughtered on this point. 

 

41 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

This has become like trying to debate with a Jehovah Witness on the existence of…well Jehovah. Some people want tanks so badly that they are bending reality to make them fit. This is not logic, reason, analysis or assessment - it is faith. And I learned a long time ago that there is no point really trying to argue with faith. Faith doesn’t play by the rules. It starts with a conclusion and then all roads run to that conclusion. This is not discourse or useful subjective thinking, it is preaching while trying to convert.

 

41 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The tank is being replaced. Firepower and mobility can be delivered by other systems better right now.

Such as?
 

41 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

“Ukraine and Russia just don’t know how to use tanks.”

Never said this, I literally said in my last post that the AFU have been using tanks far better than the Russians. At least be bothered to read what I say. 

 

41 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Tanks were declared dead before…and my working theory is that they likely were. Since the ATGM revolution of the early 70s we have no real peer wars that highlight the continued use of tanks as envisioned. We have Iran and Iraq, but neither side had well developed tank doctrine nor manoeuvre warfare. And that war, like this one, was dominated by attrition…and they had tanks…not a good sign. And then there is the Persian Gulf. Tanks and mech definitely worked there, but 1) it was after a month of total air dominance and 2) against the f#cking Iraqis again. We never employed our tank doctrines against an opponent designed to counter them.  So we really don’t know if the tank has been dead since the 70s or not.

There it is


 

41 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I mean if one can take the time out of one’s busy day searching for Ukraine tank videos:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/stocks/RTX-N/pressreleases/28383214/global-military-drone-industry-seeing-rapid-technological-advancements-as-market-growth-accelerates/

I am no business guru but that CAGR (13.8%) is higher than projections for the IT sector(11%):

 https://www.businessresearchinsights.com/market-reports/information-technology-it-market-108885#:~:text=Information Technology (IT) Market REPORT OVERVIEW&text=The global information technology (IT,11.0% during the forecast period.

Meanwhile military land vehicles are coming in at about 7.4% - and note that the market is already about half the military drone market ($36b vs $16b). It is amazing what one can find on the internet when not solely focused on tank porn in order to support foregone conclusions.

No way, a previously small sector of military industry saw a rapid growth? Clearly this means armour vehicles are over! Do you always think in such absolutes?
 

Edited September 8 by ArmouredTopHat

[ArmouredTopHat]

Moving on to more interesting matters:
 

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

A rare POV from a engineering vehicle. Pretty rare and precious for the AFU 

[danfrodo]

Good re-direct @ArmouredTopHat       Economic disruption may be what ends this awful war, as stated many times here on this thread.   interesting that RU talkers are concerned about Kursk economic issues due to, well, armed invasion.  Meanwhile, lots of other infrastructure getting destroyed every day.  The utter insanity when a country is ruled by one totalitarian psychopath -- no price is too high to keep the god-emperor's war going.  

Other item.  The Chieftain is the high priest of tanks stuff, to whom I pray often, knowing it's likely that our gods (tanks) are dying.  But we at least have the days of old, when armor ruled.