How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[poesel]

5 hours 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.

A tractor pulls a plow while an ABV pushes it. Having the vehicle in front of the plow would make it very unusable for mine clearing. Putting the plow in front of the tractor is not technically feasibly - the front axis is too weak.

The width of a farming plow is much smaller than that thing in the front of the Keiler. A plow is not a harrow.
Pulling a plow is also mechanically much easier than pushing it.

Again, I'm not arguing that this system is useful at the front in this war. But if you want something that can push such a plow, it will look like this. A tractor won't do it.

3 hours 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...

The (maybe) biggest commercial bulldozer is this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komatsu_D575A

It weighs 150t, about 3 Keilers while having about 2/3 of its horsepower. And no armor plates. So it should be able to basically fulfill the role of a purpose built ABV.

The biggest Komatsu was about 1m$ a pop while the Keiler is just about 6m€. So the ratio of 1:5 is about right (without the cost for modifying the Komatsu).

  I guess the reason why Ukraine doesn't do it is that they didn't have much luck with the ABV. Why should an ErsatzABV work better even if you have more of them?

 

To avoid being painted into the pro-ABV corner: I don't think that these vehicles are useful at the frontline in this war. Too big of a slow moving target. This has been discussed here ad nauseam.
My guess is that there must be an unmanned solution for this that does not use brute force (a plow). The question is only if we will see it in this war or not.

[The_Capt]

13 minutes ago, poesel said:

A tractor pulls a plow while an ABV pushes it. Having the vehicle in front of the plow would make it very unusable for mine clearing. Putting the plow in front of the tractor is not technically feasibly - the front axis is too weak.

Ah, so battlefield considerations appear to matter after all. So which ones are worth considering then?

[ArmouredTopHat]

Very intriguing situation. 

[sburke]

4 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

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. 
 

well you certainly pointed out some use cases, but the core point was the word SUCCESSFUL.  As I specifically noted I wasn't arguing against the explosives per se, but that bit of proven usefulness in the sense of clearing a minefield in a successful operation.  In the Russian case so far the videos I've watched are mostly them getting blown up (even when they weren't actually at the point of a breaching operation), which is more or less my point.

We have one example so far of an enemy defensive belt being breached successfully as noted previously around Kursk oblast.  I won't rehash again why I think that one was successful.

[Battlefront.com]

43 minutes ago, sburke said:

well you certainly pointed out some use cases, but the core point was the word SUCCESSFUL.  As I specifically noted I wasn't arguing against the explosives per se, but that bit of proven usefulness in the sense of clearing a minefield in a successful operation.  In the Russian case so far the videos I've watched are mostly them getting blown up (even when they weren't actually at the point of a breaching operation), which is more or less my point.

We have one example so far of an enemy defensive belt being breached successfully as noted previously around Kursk oblast.  I won't rehash again why I think that one was successful.

Correct.  And the one and only example of a successful breaching operation, in maneuver warfare terms, was by all accounts against a weakly defended sector of front.  As we've known since WW1 days, it doesn't matter how many mines, obstacles, or trenches you have if all that is defending them are crap troops armed with crap weapons, led by crap leaders, governed by crap doctrine, and constrained by crap political level decisions... well... a determined effort to breach will likely succeed.  It wasn't quite hundreds of defenders surrendering to a single helicopter level experience of the Gulf War, but it wasn't that far away from it.

On the other hand, we have this:

We covered the disastrous breaching operations of the 47th and 33rd Mech as it happened, but here is a good summary:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a44157100/ukraine-suffers-losses-breaching-minefield/

Quote

A second Leopard 2A6 also was knocked out. Another still image from a drone shows that the Brigade apparently lost three out of the six Leopard 2R de-mining tanks donated by Finland--another painful loss.

Ultimately, the Oryx blog visually confirmed the loss of a total of 16 Bradleys and three Leopard 2A6s in the area (though not necessarily all in the same day), of which only five Bradleys and one Leopard 2 were irrecoverably destroyed.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

He was probably referencing the classic Ogre game.

I didn't think this group needed the clarification, but apparently poesel isn't quite the man I thought him to be! 40 lashes with a wet noodle while wearing a dunce cap a facing the corner for him

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

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. 

This is just silly.  The other possibility is that you, who do not have even remotely similar credentials, are missing some rather critical understanding that The_Capt has.  The primary thing you're missing, as I see it, is not understanding what he wrote.

One of your favorite things to dodge in discussions like this is the problem with numbers.  Fewer, more capable vehicles only matters if those vehicles are able to perform the job they are intended to perform.  As I sated in my previous post, technology has shifted to the point where this is no longer the case.  The aforementioned burned out Leopard breaching vehicles is just the tip of the evidence iceberg.

Anybody who has played Combat Mission likely understands that it doesn't matter if your side has the best of X type of unit if a) you don't have it available, b) you do, but only a couple and you just lost them, or c) the enemy and/or terrain undercuts their advantage.  One of my all time favorite posts on this Forum was outing a player would quit any QuickBattle game that didn't have dry, open ground.  Why?  Because he loved King Tigers and also didn't want to lose

The argument NATO has always made is that having the best stuff means a favorable outcome.  This theory was already under huge stress before the war and it is now totally trashed.  Superior quality still matters, but in certain classes of equipment it no longer is enough because they aren't able to produce the results they were designed for.

Maneuver warfare is dead for now.  The first question is why, the second question is what can be done about it, and the third question is if it is practical to implement.  But before getting to that, one has to accept reality and dispense with denial that things have fundamentally changed.  Because denial has an abysmally poor track record of solving real problems.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

16 hours ago, Eug85 said:

The fundamental difference between a well-protected tank and a poorly protected one is the crew's confidence that they have the right to make mistakes.

Exactly.  And this is why it is sooooooo important to not live in a parallel universe on these sorts of issues.  Russia does and it isn't working out well for them. 

The obvious path to go down is unmanned systems.  A skilled operator 5km back from the front certainly will feel a lot better about breaching a minefield than being in ANY armored vehicle that exists today or is on the drawing board for the next 20 years of use.

By dispensing with the Human element in breaching the equipment can be produced less expensively and in greater numbers than the best manned equivalents. 

I can see combining UAV recon using ground penetrating radar or heat mapping to plot where known mines are on a precisely detailed 3D terrain model, feed that data to an AI, have it come up with an optimal solution, then send one of many breaching vehicles into the field wile covered by combined arms (including EW, counter drone warfare, etc.).

This can't be done if nations squander their resources on Ogres because thinking that's a good idea requires a high level of denial of reality.  And as I just said, denial is a really piss-poor planning tool.

Steve

[Blazing 88's]

A Conversation with Kyrylo Budanov (CC works well):

 

[The_Capt]

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is just silly.  The other possibility is that you, who do not have even remotely similar credentials, are missing some rather critical understanding that The_Capt has.  The primary thing you're missing, as I see it, is not understanding what he wrote.

One of your favorite things to dodge in discussions like this is the problem with numbers.  Fewer, more capable vehicles only matters if those vehicles are able to perform the job they are intended to perform.  As I sated in my previous post, technology has shifted to the point where this is no longer the case.  The aforementioned burned out Leopard breaching vehicles is just the tip of the evidence iceberg.

Anybody who has played Combat Mission likely understands that it doesn't matter if your side has the best of X type of unit if a) you don't have it available, b) you do, but only a couple and you just lost them, or c) the enemy and/or terrain undercuts their advantage.  One of my all time favorite posts on this Forum was outing a player would quit any QuickBattle game that didn't have dry, open ground.  Why?  Because he loved King Tigers and also didn't want to lose

The argument NATO has always made is that having the best stuff means a favorable outcome.  This theory was already under huge stress before the war and it is now totally trashed.  Superior quality still matters, but in certain classes of equipment it no longer is enough because they aren't able to produce the results they were designed for.

Maneuver warfare is dead for now.  The first question is why, the second question is what can be done about it, and the third question is if it is practical to implement.  But before getting to that, one has to accept reality and dispense with denial that things have fundamentally changed.  Because denial has an abysmally poor track record of solving real problems.

Steve

Heh, the hilarious part is that when I was an armored Engr troop commander we had those German vehicles. I am intimately aware of what the AEV and AVLB are capable of, having spent hours and days jumping in on maintenance and operation of them. 

The Boar nee Ogre is trying to replace the ploughs and rollers of the MBTs, as well as the line charge launching systems…along with what looks like some route clearing and detection tech. It stuffs it all on a very expensive chassis on a single platform that will likely remain dependent on other engineer support to do a job that likely cannot be done under the current conditions. It is capability designed for previous wars, not the ones we are likely to face. It was ordered years ago well before this war but is now potentially a large waste of money and effort. As well as a liability if it becomes a bottleneck in breaching operations.

 

[chuckdyke]

In other words we need Total Recall technology. Fool the enemy that their alternative universe is real. One of the contributing factors of D-Day was 'Ruse de Guerre' or the deception missions. The mind boggles what can be achieved in the near future. 

Edited Sunday at 11:50 PM by chuckdyke

[Fenris]

On 9/13/2024 at 9:36 AM, Fenris said:

Does this qualify as an example of mass on modern battlefield?  A lot of footage chopped together, certainly makes it look like a lot of things have been blowing up.  Be interesting to see uncut vision like K-2 publishes.

 

More footage of this attack

Quote

Ukrainian forces from the 46th Airmobile Brigade, 59th Motorized Brigade, and 21st Special Battalion successfully repelled a massive mechanized assault by Russian armored vehicles in the Pokrovske direction. A total of 46 enemy vehicles attempted to break through to the village of Hostre. The convoy concentrated near the Lozova River, where it suffered heavy losses from artillery strikes and was later finished off by drones.

 

[poesel]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Ah, so battlefield considerations appear to matter after all. So which ones are worth considering then?

Are you actively trying to misunderstand me? A mine clearing vehicle that would drag its mine clearing device behind itself would be useless even if the enemy had only spears apart from the mines. 

[poesel]

54 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I didn't think this group needed the clarification, but apparently poesel isn't quite the man I thought him to be! 40 lashes with a wet noodle while wearing a dunce cap a facing the corner for him

Steve

I never played any of these games. At that time in the 80s those ‚war games‘ were shunned. Only crazy militarists would play that. If you didn’t live in a big city you would never have seen something like that. Even then it was unlikely. Access to porn was much easier.  

[Fenris]

Said to be testing the drone + RPG combo

 

[The_Capt]

30 minutes ago, poesel said:

Are you actively trying to misunderstand me? A mine clearing vehicle that would drag its mine clearing device behind itself would be useless even if the enemy had only spears apart from the mines. 

Really? Fascinating deduction.

No, you stated up front that your were not considering the vehicles “battlefield role.” Instead focusing only one the safety of hard engineering factors. My point was that this was impossible as the battlefield role and environment drive those engineering factors. You cannot sidestep them nor drawn an arbitrary line as to what or what not to consider. You cannot simply worry about earth and mine pushing and disregard how this vehicle fits into a broader system. This would be the point you are missing. None of this is a simple engineering problem. It is an engineering problem where the components are driven by battlefield requirements.

[Battlefront.com]

38 minutes ago, poesel said:

I never played any of these games.

Neither have I, but I hang around people here who have

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

7 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

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. 

Having just listened to this excellent video, I'm wondering how closely you thought about what he said.  For starters, he clearly spelled out a use case (current and future) for the attack helicopter, but he explicitly wondered how it would be kept within sensible budgetary priorities given that there are other systems that offer either a) better cost value or b) more robust results.  And on top of that, he made the general case that defense spending is all about tradeoffs because there isn't enough money available to fund everything a nation wants and/or needs.  These are arguments you have routinely rejected when applied to tanks, instead insisting that since tanks aren't totally pointless that they can't be questioned and also directly stating that the solution to constrained budgets is to increase the budgets.

More generally, though, everything Perun said about attack helicopters is applicable to the discussion of heavy armor, in particular MBTs.  Everything.  In fact, if I got a transcript of Peron's video I could swap out weapons system names and pretty much recreate the same argument that the TankIsDead™ folks have made here so many times already.

In fact, I would go on to say that the only significant difference between attack helicopters and heavy armor is that the former is far worse than the latter in terms of failure to perform its role and the cost associated with maintaining the capability.  Put another way, attack helicopters have suffered an obvious bullet to the head, heavy armor only a major chest wound.  Chest wounds are not great, but certainly it's better than a bullet to the head.

7 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

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. 

If this were about tanks you would be holding up the Polish example as the correct one, as you did with the Dutch budget to theoretically buy tanks.

Well, I'm at least glad for the fact that we agree that AttackHelicoptersAreDead™

Steve

P.S.  the video has some VERY interesting data summaries of the failures of Excalibur and ground launched small diameter glide bombs.  Faithful readers of this thread have already seen these topics touched on, but now there is some more data to absorb

[sburke]

@poesel @The_Capt

Umm I think you guys actually agree with one another.......  maybe take a moment and reread what you have both written, make allowances for sarcasm and umm   yeah.

[Battlefront.com]

15 minutes ago, sburke said:

@poesel @The_Capt

Umm I think you guys actually agree with one another.......  maybe take a moment and reread what you have both written, make allowances for sarcasm and umm   yeah.

Yes.  It's always sad to see two people fighting over saying the same thing.  Leaves less time and energy to fight about things that aren't agreeable.  Which is, I think, what the Internet was built for.  That and cat videos

Steve

[cesmonkey]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/15/us/politics/trump-shooting-suspect-routh.html

Quote

Suspected Gunman Said He Was Willing to Fight and Die in Ukraine
Ryan Wesley Routh, 58, told The New York Times in 2023 that he had traveled to Ukraine and wanted to recruit Afghan soldiers to fight there.

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

59 minutes ago, sburke said:

Umm I think you guys actually agree with one another.......  maybe take a moment and reread what you have both written, make allowances for sarcasm and umm   yeah.

Shhh... Agreement is boring

[billbindc]

13 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/15/us/politics/trump-shooting-suspect-routh.html

 

Routh is a fantasist, loon and liar. Follow the thread...from June: 

 

[chuckdyke]

4 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Shhh... Agreement is boring

Like having one boxer in the ring, it takes two to tango. 

[sross112]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Maneuver warfare is dead for now.  The first question is why, the second question is what can be done about it, and the third question is if it is practical to implement.  But before getting to that, one has to accept reality and dispense with denial that things have fundamentally changed.  Because denial has an abysmally poor track record of solving real problems.

Steve

Is it? Or is it just dead in Ukraine? I asked a few days ago about maneuver being possible under air superiority or supremacy, but no one picked up the discussion. If one side is able to gain air supremacy, doesn't that negate the constraints that are keeping maneuver in a box? 

If the USAF suddenly got the go ahead to support the UA with everything they had and took away the RA denial of airspace and cleared the skies of the RuAF, would the UA be able to go mobile? Wouldn't it be pretty much the same as a Desert Storm at that point? Pound them at will for however long you deem necessary. Take out every piece of arty, AA and logistics that can be found. At that point, how is the maneuver stopped?

Serious question and I'd like those of you that can educate me to chime in and do just that. Thanks in advance.