How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

51 minutes ago, poesel said:

So unless you deny that ABVs make sense in the first place, or you only need a breach of a lesser width, this vehicle makes a lot of sense.

Except for the part where you have egregiously oversimplified a minefield breaching operation.

Let's say that we keep heavy and are going to keep doing minefield breaching operations to get tanks and mech across obstacles:

- We are still going to need mineplows and rollers on tanks as they lead. This beast is going to be held back for deliberate major breaching operations only.

- What happens when "the Boar" runs into an AT ditch? 

Front end is going to dig in and stall. Or if it is articulated the operator will raise it to try and clear the berm and wind up with a shadow spot. Explosives line charges are going to do the same thing

- It is an extremely high profile vehicle. Given modern ISR a near-peer opponent is going to see this thing coming kms away and make it an HVT.

Ok, you happily overcome all that, make the breach...mischief managed, right? Nope. re-seeding is going to happen behind you delivered either by artillery or drones. So while your armor is pushing forward to the deep bass sounds of corporate (non-copyrighted) heavy metal, your logistics is getting blowed up behind you.

So, no, spending a lot of money on a more expensive, "better" version of what already does not work today does not make a lot of sense. 

[poesel]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Except for the part where you have egregiously oversimplified a minefield breaching operation.

Let's say that we keep heavy and are going to keep doing minefield breaching operations to get tanks and mech across obstacles:

- We are still going to need mineplows and rollers on tanks as they lead. This beast is going to be held back for deliberate major breaching operations only.

- What happens when "the Boar" runs into an AT ditch? 

Front end is going to dig in and stall. Or if it is articulated the operator will raise it to try and clear the berm and wind up with a shadow spot. Explosives line charges are going to do the same thing

- It is an extremely high profile vehicle. Given modern ISR a near-peer opponent is going to see this thing coming kms away and make it an HVT.

Ok, you happily overcome all that, make the breach...mischief managed, right? Nope. re-seeding is going to happen behind you delivered either by artillery or drones. So while your armor is pushing forward to the deep bass sounds of corporate (non-copyrighted) heavy metal, your logistics is getting blowed up behind you.

So, no, spending a lot of money on a more expensive, "better" version of what already does not work today does not make a lot of sense. 

If you deny that ABVs make sense - and I guess you do given what you wrote - then this vehicle is useless. That is exactly what I wrote above. And I wrote it like this to escape from this argumentation.

I gave an explanation why this vehicle looks like it does. Based on a guess what the engineering requirements were. I did not analyze its role on the battlefield.

So again: if (IF!) you want a vehicle with these capabilities, it will look similar to this vehicle. If you make it smaller, it will not be able to execute its role.

Edited Sunday at 01:06 PM by poesel

[The_Capt]

26 minutes ago, poesel said:

If you deny that ABVs make sense - and I guess you do given what you wrote - then this vehicle is useless. That is exactly what I wrote above. And I wrote it like this to escape from this argumentation.

I gave an explanation why this vehicle looks like it does. Based on a guess what the engineering were. I did not analyze its role on the battlefield.

So again: if (IF!) you want a vehicle with these capabilities, it will look similar to this vehicle. If you make it smaller, it will not be able to execute its role.

Well I would offer that considering that this is an military minefield breaching vehicle, its role on the battlefield is kinda central to its capabilities. If all we needed was a vehicle to push a lane of dirt the width of a Leo 2, I can see farm ploughs outside my window right now capable of doing just that. The battlefield drives capability requirements and cannot be uncoupled from whatever vehicle is being purchased.

I am never a fan of "we tried nothing different and are all out of ideas." Hopefully some bright kids can come up with a breaching system that we can use en masse that is cheaper and more dispersible. Further such a system needs to keep the minefields behind us open. Because if we keep coming up with solutions like the Boar, we are in trouble.

Edited Sunday at 01:11 PM by The_Capt

[billbindc]

Excellent roundup: 

https://www.wsj.com/world/ignore-the-defeatists-americas-strategy-is-working-inukraine-f13ba4ef

[ArmouredTopHat]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

What happens when "the Boar" runs into an AT ditch? 

You call in the AEV 3 that's supposed to be paired with the future breaching vehicle that has the ability to dig its way through. A breaching vehicle is primarily meant to deal with mines. An Armoured engineering vehicle is better fitted towards battlefield obstacles and general engineering challenges. This is pretty well established with most militaries have some combination or a modular platform able to handle said tasks. 

The Germans certainly could be doing worse, given both are based on the Leo 2 chassis and therefore share a good amount of parts. Prior engineering vehicles were based on the Leo 1. 

I think you were under the misconception that the future breaching vehicle was meant to do everything on its own. 



 

Edited Sunday at 02:56 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[Vlad]

23 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Another example of Russian propaganda at work.  This came to me by a friend who knows the publication is a propaganda rag, but was wondering what the real story was that was being distorted.  Obviously, people here know the answer.  I'm including it because it's a good example of the sort of crap that the right and left so easily fall victim to:
https://asiatimes.com/2024/09/biden-nato-effectively-declaring-war-on-russia/

Steve

This is better situation than I had.

In my previous job, there was a colleague (~60yo with university education) who, when we talked about the Ukraine war, started parroting Russian propaganda under the guise of "who knows where the truth really is?" He even tried to defend previous Russian wars (like Georgia) with something like old Soviet factories that Russia lost access to when Georgia became Independent or something like that. Intergalactical level mental gymnastics that you would normally expect from Jehovah's Wittnesses. Of course with a healthy side of whataboutism and when I called him out on that, his response was "oh, it's just one of those new liberal words of yours". He has then sent me a link, I think it was some crap that Zelensky supposedly laundered money through some Caribic countries. It took me a few seconds to google about the site to find out, that it's some "news" organisation located in Crimea. When I pointed that out, his response was a mere "well, if that's what you got out of it.....".

 

When thinking about it, one strong factor of Russian propaganda's success here in Slovakia is that many older people suffer from rosy retrospection - the "snow used to be whiter and grass used to be greener back in my day" mentality. Many people, like my stepfather, say that everything was better during previous regime (pre-1989) - no drugs (well, when the media controlled by the state aren't allowed to report it then it may seem so), much less criminality (same reason), or the food was just better and without any chemical additives (no effing way - in ~70's Czechislovakia tried to export ham or something like that to the US, but they got turned down because the chemical analysis provided bad results) and so on. So I guess such people get closer to Russia because of the "glory" of the past and wishing for it to return.

But then again, I have an university educated friend (a bit over 40) who believes plenty of the conspiracies (chemtrails, Jews controlling the world, blah, blah) along with Russian propaganda spread by our "alternative media", like Ukrainians are harvesting organs from corpses in Donbass to sell them. Those media, who got several times caught red-handed when either getting money from the Russians, or asking for the money themselves. And as before, when confronted with it, he just tried to downplay it as rumors.

That's why the people woted our current PM to the office and due to his rhetoric, we are being compared to watered-down Hungary.

[hcrof]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Well I would offer that considering that this is an military minefield breaching vehicle, its role on the battlefield is kinda central to its capabilities. If all we needed was a vehicle to push a lane of dirt the width of a Leo 2, I can see farm ploughs outside my window right now capable of doing just that. The battlefield drives capability requirements and cannot be uncoupled from whatever vehicle is being purchased.

I am never a fan of "we tried nothing different and are all out of ideas." Hopefully some bright kids can come up with a breaching system that we can use en masse that is cheaper and more dispersible. Further such a system needs to keep the minefields behind us open. Because if we keep coming up with solutions like the Boar, we are in trouble.

I do wonder what is stopping the Ukrainians from buying second hand bulldozers, welding on a control system, some armoured plate and a mine plow, turning them into UGV mine breaching vehicles. Not nearly as effective as a dedicated breaching vehicle but you could buy 5 of them for the cost of even a single T72 and at least one of them is likely to get through.

I am probably underestimating how complicated it is to drive one of those things...

[The_Capt]

25 minutes ago, hcrof said:

I do wonder what is stopping the Ukrainians from buying second hand bulldozers, welding on a control system, some armoured plate and a mine plow, turning them into UGV mine breaching vehicles. Not nearly as effective as a dedicated breaching vehicle but you could buy 5 of them for the cost of even a single T72 and at least one of them is likely to get through.

I am probably underestimating how complicated it is to drive one of those things...

I am wondering if thermite could do a decent job of clearing a lane.

[Eug85]

35 minutes ago, Vlad said:

This is better situation than I had.

In my previous job, there was a colleague (~60yo with university education) who, when we talked about the Ukraine war, started parroting Russian propaganda under the guise of "who knows where the truth really is?" He even tried to defend previous Russian wars (like Georgia) with something like old Soviet factories that Russia lost access to when Georgia became Independent or something like that. Intergalactical level mental gymnastics that you would normally expect from Jehovah's Wittnesses. Of course with a healthy side of whataboutism and when I called him out on that, his response was "oh, it's just one of those new liberal words of yours". He has then sent me a link, I think it was some crap that Zelensky supposedly laundered money through some Caribic countries. It took me a few seconds to google about the site to find out, that it's some "news" organisation located in Crimea. When I pointed that out, his response was a mere "well, if that's what you got out of it.....".

 

When thinking about it, one strong factor of Russian propaganda's success here in Slovakia is that many older people suffer from rosy retrospection - the "snow used to be whiter and grass used to be greener back in my day" mentality. Many people, like my stepfather, say that everything was better during previous regime (pre-1989) - no drugs (well, when the media controlled by the state aren't allowed to report it then it may seem so), much less criminality (same reason), or the food was just better and without any chemical additives (no effing way - in ~70's Czechislovakia tried to export ham or something like that to the US, but they got turned down because the chemical analysis provided bad results) and so on. So I guess such people get closer to Russia because of the "glory" of the past and wishing for it to return.

But then again, I have an university educated friend (a bit over 40) who believes plenty of the conspiracies (chemtrails, Jews controlling the world, blah, blah) along with Russian propaganda spread by our "alternative media", like Ukrainians are harvesting organs from corpses in Donbass to sell them. Those media, who got several times caught red-handed when either getting money from the Russians, or asking for the money themselves. And as before, when confronted with it, he just tried to downplay it as rumors.

That's why the people woted our current PM to the office and due to his rhetoric, we are being compared to watered-down Hungary.

Unfortunately, this affects not only people from the socialist camp. Unfortunately, young people are also susceptible to this effect. There is simply a group of people with a certain mindset and they are strongly predisposed to the most stupid propaganda. The stupidest thing to do is to argue with such people and try to prove something. Any information that does not fit into the framework of their thinking will be immediately discarded. You will only cause aggression directed at you. In other words, you should not tell them that they eat ****. They just like the taste.

[sburke]

oops never mind.  back to getting coffee

Edited Sunday at 03:51 PM by sburke

[sburke]

52 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I think you were under the misconception that the future breaching vehicle was meant to do everything on its own. 

No I don't think that was the issue.  What he is highlighting is a fundamental contradiction.  A breaching operation these days is going to be an excessively costly operation and we have to expect to lose a lot of men and material.  These vehicles by their very nature are going to be few and far between and not easily replaced.  While the vehicle themselves may be a very cool Swiss army knife kind of thing there just aren't going to be enough to alter the equation.

What he has suggested I believe is that the Soviet view of offensive operations from the Cold war likely has a higher chance of success than the western view in terms of recognizing the reality of how costly breaching operations will be and the willingness to accept that cost in lives and material if you really want to try.

I mean geez just think-  The Ogre clears a lane to the AT ditch.  Now it has to back out of the way clearing the lane for the AEV which clears the ditch then it backs out to clear the lane for the ogre again.  During that time period what does one expect the enemy is doing?  All that time the ogre AND the AEV are in a nice confined area allowing the enemy to probably target both.

[sburke]

NATO military committee chair, others back Ukraine's use of long range weapons to hit Russia (msn.com)

[ArmouredTopHat]

14 minutes ago, sburke said:

No I don't think that was the issue.  What he is highlighting is a fundamental contradiction.  A breaching operation these days is going to be an excessively costly operation and we have to expect to lose a lot of men and material.  These vehicles by their very nature are going to be few and far between and not easily replaced.  While the vehicle themselves may be a very cool Swiss army knife kind of thing there just aren't going to be enough to alter the equation.

What he has suggested I believe is that the Soviet view of offensive operations from the Cold war likely has a higher chance of success than the western view in terms of recognizing the reality of how costly breaching operations will be and the willingness to accept that cost in lives and material if you really want to try.

I mean geez just think-  The Ogre clears a lane to the AT ditch.  Now it has to back out of the way clearing the lane for the AEV which clears the ditch then it backs out to clear the lane for the ogre again.  During that time period what does one expect the enemy is doing?  All that time the ogre AND the AEV are in a nice confined area allowing the enemy to probably target both.

Which then comes back to the point that was brought up by the WW1 comparison: Attacking such a well defended position is going to suck no matter what you do, but AEVs seem to be the best option out of a lot of bad ones. 

What is the alternative here? You can attack a weaker area of the line I suppose (Which still required engineering vehicles as we saw to breach the dragons teeth and minefields at Kursk) 

In terms of basic vehicles / approach though, what else do you use? Infantry sappers get torn to bloody pieces so they are not an option for the most part. Anything outside of a tank chassis lacks the weight to push earth around properly, or the protection otherwise offered by said platform. You could design something off a civilian dozer, yet nothing of the sort anywhere has emerged. Anything civilian seems to be currently tied up digging their own defences, at least for Ukraine. 

Capt keeps saying putting dozers on everything, yet we see in Ukraine that the rollers / dozers tanks have are clearly insufficient at dealing with extensive minefields. There are cons to their use as well on a normal tank platform (extra weight for one)

Perhaps a UGV based on an old tank chassis might be the best of both worlds. The new generation of engineering vehicles do have increasing capacity for remote use. 

Edited Sunday at 04:06 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[sburke]

13 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Which then comes back to the point that was brought up by the WW1 comparison: Attacking such a well defended position is going to suck no matter what you do, but AEVs seem to be the best option out of a lot of bad ones. 

What is the alternative here? You can attack a weaker area of the line I suppose (Which still required engineering vehicles as we saw to breach the dragons teeth and minefields at Kursk) 
 

Well Steve and @The_Capt have expended several long posts exploring this.  My personal expertise in military matters is focused on parking garages and my offer to teach at the War College was premised on only that subject.

The core point they have been making is

1 ISR means that any breaching operation regardless of vehicle used is going to get spotted.

2 Drones and long range precision weapons pretty much guarantee that the breaching operation is going to get hit

3 The defensive belt is designed to slow the enemy, other resources take care of the stopping.

At the moment I think both are saying we don't have an answer to how to successfully breach if the enemy has the resources to defend.  The particulars of the vehicle really aren't the problem.  The UA operation around Kursk was likely successful because the Russians didn't have the resources there to do anything in time.  Odds are pretty good that they could have spotted something but with the size of the frontage, Russia simply didn't have the layers in place to do the stopping part. Whether that was arrogance assuming the UA wouldn't try an offensive operation or simply lack of resources is hard to say.  There were some statements made prior about how Russia was handling defensive resources near the border that suggested they were making it difficult for those responsible for border defense to access the materials needed.   Finding an area where Russia makes that same mistake again is likely to be difficult.

The other reality is even with their success breaching the border, the UA has not made an operational level breakthrough.

[sburke]

Civilians rat out Kadyrovites to Ukrainian defence forces in Kursk Oblast (msn.com)

[The_Capt]

5 minutes ago, sburke said:

No I don't think that was the issue.  What he is highlighting is a fundamental contradiction.  A breaching operation these days is going to be an excessively costly operation and we have to expect to lose a lot of men and material.  These vehicles by their very nature are going to be few and far between and not easily replaced.  While the vehicle themselves may be a very cool Swiss army knife kind of thing there just aren't going to be enough to alter the equation.

What he has suggested I believe is that the Soviet view of offensive operations from the Cold war likely has a higher chance of success than the western view in terms of recognizing the reality of how costly breaching operations will be and the willingness to accept that cost in lives and material if you really want to try.

I mean geez just think-  The Ogre clears a lane to the AT ditch.  Now it has to back out of the way clearing the lane for the AEV which clears the ditch then it backs out to clear the lane for the ogre again.  During that time period what does one expect the enemy is doing?  All that time the ogre AND the AEV are in a nice confined area allowing the enemy to probably target both.

Considering that I am likely the only one in this conversation that has commanded AEVs, AVLBs and sappers on mechanized minefield breaching training, I am pretty confident I understand the situation quite well. 

That "Boar" is a multi-million dollar highly specialized vehicle doing that mine plows and line charges on trailers did. It will still need AEV and Bridges, and likely sappers. Which kinda makes me wonder - what is the point? An overly expensive piece of equipment that is going to be challenged to do what was already being attempted, and still needs support for stuff it is missing.

This sounds like a big military "sexy" purchase that may be dead on arrival.

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

15 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Considering that I am likely the only one in this conversation that has commanded AEVs, AVLBs and sappers on mechanized minefield breaching training, I am pretty confident I understand the situation quite well. 

That "Boar" is a multi-million dollar highly specialized vehicle doing that mine plows and line charges on trailers did. It will still need AEV and Bridges, and likely sappers. Which kinda makes me wonder - what is the point? An overly expensive piece of equipment that is going to be challenged to do what was already being attempted, and still needs support for stuff it is missing.

This sounds like a big military "sexy" purchase that may be dead on arrival.

 

Despite those credentials, you seem incapable of realising that Germany does in fact operate those aforementioned vehicles as well as the planned breaching vehicle. The ABV vehicle is not meant to do everything on its own. 

I think the conflict in Ukraine has proven that you do in fact need an explosive option of some sort when it comes to minefield clearance. Ploughs / flail systems only seem to be effective to a point. (Is there a reason flail vehicles seem to be far less utilised these days?)

I would of thought a guy with practical experience of combat engineering would appreciate the value of such vehicles. Still does not mention what would take their place on the battlefield. What is an an alternative and how would it be used? Keep hearing about these vehicles being expensive wastes yet I dont exactly see what else can do the job for cheaper. 

A drone project with some potential might be this: though it seems to still be in relative early days and seems to be more tailored for mine disposal after a conflict, instead of active mine clearing during an assault. 

https://minekafon.org/

Edited Sunday at 05:27 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[sburke]

1 minute ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I think the conflict in Ukraine has proven that you do in fact need an explosive option of some sort when it comes to minefield clearance. Ploughs / flail systems only seem to be effective to a point. (Is there a reason flail vehicles seem to be far less utilised these days?)

Where was that proven?  The only thing that has been "proven" in Ukraine is that breaching a defended belt has been proven to be so difficult it hasn't been done successfully to allow any tempo to offensive operations.

and before you suggest it, I am not saying that it has no use.  What I am saying is that there isn't a successful breaching operation you can point to with the exception of Kursk and the primary reason for success there was a lack of covering forces by the RA.  I can't say I have even seen a video there where an explosive option was used.

[The_Capt]

46 minutes ago, sburke said:

Well Steve and @The_Capt have expended several long posts exploring this.  My personal expertise in military matters is focused on parking garages and my offer to teach at the War College was premised on only that subject.

The core point they have been making is

1 ISR means that any breaching operation regardless of vehicle used is going to get spotted.

2 Drones and long range precision weapons pretty much guarantee that the breaching operation is going to get hit

3 The defensive belt is designed to slow the enemy, other resources take care of the stopping.

At the moment I think both are saying we don't have an answer to how to successfully breach if the enemy has the resources to defend.  The particulars of the vehicle really aren't the problem.  The UA operation around Kursk was likely successful because the Russians didn't have the resources there to do anything in time.  Odds are pretty good that they could have spotted something but with the size of the frontage, Russia simply didn't have the layers in place to do the stopping part. Whether that was arrogance assuming the UA wouldn't try an offensive operation or simply lack of resources is hard to say.  There were some statements made prior about how Russia was handling defensive resources near the border that suggested they were making it difficult for those responsible for border defense to access the materials needed.   Finding an area where Russia makes that same mistake again is likely to be difficult.

The other reality is even with their success breaching the border, the UA has not made an operational level breakthrough.

And here we have another major flaw in western military doctrine. Besides the Persian Gulf War, we have never tested out mechanized breaching doctrines outside of training areas. The Persian Gulf War was not the same war we are seeing in Ukraine. In fact if we could guarantee that every war is going to be like the Gulf War then we can definitely stick with armor, mech and manoeuvre.  The Gulf war had total air superiority, for weeks, before the ground war. The forces we faced were woefully ill trained, led and equipped. And when the ground war went in, large parts of the enemy defensive lines simply surrendered. We did see some intense battles further in, but these were the exception not the rule.

Big problem: We cannot count on a war like the Gulf War again. Yet we still buy and equip as though we will. The US and West have not fought a war like Ukraine since Korea, WW2 is closer. So mech breaching doctrine is based on a successful employment in a war where the other side did not resist or cover those minefields with the technology from ‘91. There is zero proof that it will work in a modern war. In fact there is proof last summer that it will not work at all. We have gone on at length on how technology is changing the battlefield, making it harder not easier since the Gulf War.

But of course, we should invest millions into a vehicle designed 10 years ago, optimized for a war over 30 years ago. All the while watching the doctrine that vehicle is supposed to support fail in the current war. The combination of drones, ATGMs and artillery with modern ISR is nothing like Iraq in ‘91 and we know it. That combination stopped post-Cold War breaching cold. This one vehicle is not going to change that.

So why would we continue to invest a lot of money into systems we know will not work? Hope that something will come along and fix it all?

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, sburke said:

Where was that proven?  The only thing that has been "proven" in Ukraine is that breaching a defended belt has been proven to be so difficult it hasn't been done successfully to allow any tempo to offensive operations.

and before you suggest it, I am not saying that it has no use.  What I am saying is that there isn't a successful breaching operation you can point to with the exception of Kursk and the primary reason for success there was a lack of covering forces by the RA.  I can't say I have even seen a video there where an explosive option was used.

Before you get sucked too far in. Explosive breaching is designed to protect the breaching vehicles from the minefield. It does not clear away 100% of the mines in a lane. The lane needs to be cleared and proven regardless. What does is lower the likelihood that breaching systems are going to get hit by tilt-rod or MI mines.

Of course that does next to nothing against everything else we have been talking about. But normally a breach will lead with explosive charges on at least one or two lanes, which are then at a minimum proven by rollers. In reality, I would prove the lane with a plough because the risks are too high with just rollers.

Big problem with line charges is they are big and heavy. Make for prime targets. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

14 minutes ago, sburke said:

Where was that proven?  The only thing that has been "proven" in Ukraine is that breaching a defended belt has been proven to be so difficult it hasn't been done successfully to allow any tempo to offensive operations.

and before you suggest it, I am not saying that it has no use.  What I am saying is that there isn't a successful breaching operation you can point to with the exception of Kursk and the primary reason for success there was a lack of covering forces by the RA.  I can't say I have even seen a video there where an explosive option was used.

There have been more than a few videos showing the UR-77 system in use, which for all intents and purposes is used for clearing mines in the same way. There is clearly some use for this method of clearing a minefield as its clearly the fasted and most expedient way to tunnel through a belt of mines. (though not without risk) Both Russia and Ukraine make reasonable extensive use of the system which implies its got some value to it, including against enemy positions as well as mines. 

https://armyrecognition.com/focus-analysis-conflicts/army/conflicts-in-the-world/russia-ukraine-war-2022/ukrainian-soldiers-use-ur-77-mine-clearing-vehicle-to-target-russian-positions

The difference system wise is that the UR-77 is specialised and not armoured at all, being based on an SPG chassis. Its cheaper but far less protected against things like FPVs, though one can argue its better at avoiding direct fire given the nature of the weapon system compared to a plough or flail based vehicle. Clearly less protected than a ABV though which is bad when you consider the large amount of explosives such a vehicle carries. (The UK Trojan tows said system on a trailer behind it presumably for this reason)

There is obviously still trouble when dealing with deep, multiple belts of mines, but I do not see anything else doing anything better in current inventories. As people have said, its the most difficult thing to breach such defences and for now its going to require an expensive solution. 

Edited Sunday at 05:45 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[hcrof]

44 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

 (Is there a reason flail vehicles seem to be far less utilised these days?)

It's quite easy to design a fuse that doesn't go off when hit with a flail, but instead requires sustained pressure. Flails can only be used if you are sure the enemy has not used that type of fuse but they do exist in some post war applications where mines have been correctly documented so the deminers know what they are up against. 

Edited Sunday at 06:07 PM by hcrof

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 hour ago, hcrof said:

It's quite easy to design a fuse that doesn't go off when hit with a flail, but instead requires sustained pressure. Flails can only be used if you are sure the enemy has not used that type of fuse but they do exist in some post war applications where mines have been correctly documented so the deminers know what they are up against. 

This makes a lot of sense, thank you.

In the meantime:
 

I think Perun makes some very good points that stress that Attack helicopters are at a far higher risk of becoming obsolete on the battlefield due to other things replacing them compared to tanks or armoured vehicles. Especially if FPVs can prove themselves more capable of hitting them as time goes on.

The fact that Japan actually now plans to ditch attack helicopters and the US have cancelled some helicopter programs in light of the Ukraine war tells me a lot more about their viability and limitations. Far more constrained than tanks / armoured vehicles. 

Edited Sunday at 07:40 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[Eug85]

A recent example of the use of the UR 77 in the breakthrough of fortifications in the Kursk region by the Ukrainians

[Vanir Ausf B]

8 hours ago, poesel said:

First, 'Keiler' translates to 'boar' not 'ogre' (which would be 'Oger'). It is also a small wordplay, with 'Keil' meaning 'wedge'. End of German lesson.

He was probably referencing the classic Ogre game.