How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Offshoot]

5 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Russian pov of the recent drone strike seems to corroborate the likely theory that whatever hit it had some sort of jet propulsion, it comes in -fast-. 

Also bonus for seeing Russians sh*t themselves. 

Other sources saying this is a base in Bryansk oblast and not the depot in Toropets

 

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://thedefensepost.com/2024/02/28/germany-boxer-mounted-skyranger-turret/#:~:text=Germany has awarded Rheinmetall a,an option for 30 more.

Germany has awarded Rheinmetall a contract to supply Boxer-mounted Skyranger 30 short-range air defense systems for the armed forces. Costing 595 million euros ($644 million), the delivery will cover a prototype and 18 series production systems with an option for 30 more.Feb 28, 2024

 

Sky ranger is, uhm, not cheap. If they brought that down by a factor of ten they would still be too expensive to procure in the number needed. May, just a factor of ten reduction might be doable in a full up wartime mobilization

[sburke]

25 minutes ago, akd said:

ahem…

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

I bow to your superior google-fu and sheer knowledge Obi Wan.

yeah that thing!! Pricing is pretty darn high though linking them in an area wide denial system makes for a much more robust defense.

[Fenris]

A little appreciation for quietly helping in ways that don't usually make headlines.

Quote

Germany has provided €50 million for the treatment of wounded Ukrainian soldiers. So far, 1,173 severely injured soldiers and civilians have been evacuated and treated in German hospitals

 

[acrashb]

29 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

Other sources saying this is a base in Bryansk oblast and not the depot in

Pretty sure those sources are incorrect:

 

[Fenris]

Someone asked about Toropets bunkers.  According to the second post it looks more like at least some of the storage sites were open with revetments rather than underground.

 

[Offshoot]

4 minutes ago, acrashb said:

Pretty sure those sources are incorrect:

 

I was specifically referring to the attack with what sounds like a jet-powered drone in the Twitter post I quoted. This attack appears to be on another ammo depot earlier in the month. I was not saying that the attack on the Toropets depot did not happen. The implication is, we don't know what sort of drones were used to attack Toropets.

 

[acrashb]

7 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

I was specifically referring to the attack with what sounds like a jet-powered drone in the Twitter post I quoted. 

Got it.

[Fenris]

Interesting (if true) little example of the beast eating its own tail

Quote

It may not have made major headlines, but it has certainly rattled Russian troops. The commander of the assault unit of the 110th Brigade, known by his nickname "Beliy," was arrested. The terrorist is regarded as a highly competent and successful commander, with notable participation in the battle for Avdiivka. A native "Donetsk miner", Beliy has been fighting against Ukraine since 2014.

The case stems from Bely reportedly cracking down on drug dealers who were distributing narcotics to the fighters. The conflict was allegedly provoked by the "bearded dealers" [Akhmat], but despite his reputation, the high command has not come to Bely’s defense.

Several prominent war correspondents now claim the unit was unjustly beheaded, leading them to scale back their own operations in protest. They're now begging Belousov to help him out.

https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1836315158659977243

[The_Capt]

12 hours ago, JonS said:

lol - the scale problem is exactly the one I have with regards to wholesale replace-fires-(and everything else, according to el capitano)-with-drones utopianism.

But, funnily enough, I don't think scale would be a problem for a deliberate mine breaching op. Mainly because it is a deliberate operation.

• Assume an infinitely wide^ minebelt (so no flanking) that is 500m deep.
• Assume a mine density of 1 per 30m2. That's probably a bit high, but it makes the maths easier.
• Assume you want to create 4 breaches, with each one 5m wide so that it's wider than an Abrams, but not hugely so.

so that means you going to need to clear 4 lanes x 5m wide x 500m deep / 30m2 per mine = 333 mines.^^

Allow 20% contingency + 20% for breakdowns or failed drones^^^ + 20% reserve = 333 x 1.6 ~ 550 drones.

That's a lot, but it's not a redonkulosly huge number, especially since the Ukrainains are producing ... what? Reportedly 10,000 per month?

Because this is a deliberate breach the drones can be assembled and marshalled over a period of time, time which can be used to map the locations of the mines using thermal and IR and GPR and whatever other sensors we want to assume onto the recce drone fleet. With the minefield mapped in detail the clearance drones can each be programmed to go to 'their' mine, again over a period of time since we aren't exactly working against the clock here. The programming here ends up looking a bit like one of those fancy-pants 3D light shows.

Eventually, after about a day to prep, everything is set.

• At H-5 the guns start firing multi-spectral obscurants along each side of the four lanes, but not in the lane itself.
• At H the EW nerds start jamming
• Also at H the drones lift off from their marshalling areas and head towards 'their' mine in their respective lanes. Any drones that breakdown or fail before reaching 'their' mine are immediately replaced with drones from the 20% for breakdown/fail.
• Also at H other surface fires start engaging known enemy positions in an arc around the proposed breach area.
• At H+10 the first wave of drones have attacked their mines, and a recce drone sweeps each lane looking for any missed mines which are re-attacked using drones from the 20% for contingency. Again, any breakdowns/fails are immediately replaced, and the recce drone confirms alle ist klar.
• At H+20 the first vehicle starts moving through each lane. This is some kind of ABV, but it won't be as tricked-out as the Ogre thingy, since the lane "should" be clear, and this is just proving it. A tactical bound behind the first of the fighting elements start following up.
• At H+30 the first of the fighting elements start emerging from the far end of the cleared lanes, and begin exploiting into depth.

All for the cost of 550 drones.

You could definitely achieve the same effect with relays of reusable drones, but the time to breach would go up to something over an hour, and likely longer, which obviously gives the bad guys longer to react before the breach occurs.

 

 

^ also assume a spherical cow, if that makes you happy

^^ never do maths in public ...

^^^ alternately, double the number of drones in the first wave and have two drones attack each mine. That increases the number required to about 780, which is still a plausible number.

So wait a minute….you are buying into using drones to clear individual mines in a coordinated breaching operation…but “drones for all” is crazy talk? Your start point is drones targeting surface laid (I have to assume or we are talking about airborne detection and marking as well) targets in tall grass etc with each target a foot or so across? On an obstacle that will be covered by observation?

I am not even saying it is impossible - damned hard - but meanwhile we have a mountain of data and examples of drones doing dynamic targeting to effect…but upscaling that (which is already happening) is “drone utopia”? Why on earth would deliberate be better than dynamic for an already field proven dynamic capability?

As to the idea, a few hiccups:

- the OPFOR will be watching and if they see this deliberate operation building will oppose it with EW of their own. Fully autonomous may sidestep this. The good news is 1000 drones is a few truck loads  that can be carried by crews if need be so such a op could be set up with a low profile. 

- Coordination on the minefield - controls, deconfliction will not be easy and require rehearsals.

- the is the thorny problem of OPFOR reseeding behind advancing troops. So a level of air superiority (and surface once UGVs come of age) will need to be sustained. As will ISR. An opponent who can see the breach can hit it. My guess is that most of the c-UAS will need to be done by other UAS. Not sure what to do about ISR.

None of these are insurmountable but will cause friction.

And a question: In your whole H-hr breakdown, take “mine” and replace it with the word “enemy” and you have the recipe for support to just about any offensive action. In fact this could easily be applied to a deliberate assault where those same drones hit bunkers, vehicles and people. So what is your problem with “drone utopia”? In fact you have arrived at what I have been saying for some time: a new combined arms team in action - fires, drones and infantry, all hooked into an integrated C4 ISR architecture. The major issue here is that neither side has been able to pull that into a team able to create offensive momentum. Grinding, yes, Momentum…not really.

The reality is that  both sides of this war are living “drone dystopia”, the capability is dominating on denial and defence but not offence. At least not yet. While many were salivating over tanks making an appearance at Krusk, I am waiting to see what the UA did with their drones forces to support that offensive. What lessons did they observe? Can they be applied to a fully defended sector?

 

 

[The_Capt]

13 hours ago, Butschi said:

So maybe I'm a bit naive here but I imagine that within the context of a breaching operation, mobile mines might be much easier to solve for. I admit I don't know how you defect mines using drones in the first place. But anyway, given you want to keep a fairly limited amount of ground free of mines, like a number of lanes, isn't all you have to actually do keeping a few drones in the air that that monitor these lanes? If you are able to field a thousand drones to clear the lanes you will certainly be able to spare enough to monitor the cleared lanes. Now, while detecting mines may usually be complicated, I imagine detecting moving mines in an area you keep eyes on is much easier, as that should even be doable comparing camera images (instead of specialized sensors). This scenario at least seems much simpler than moving mines that crawl into all the places you can't keep monitoring.

I find two issue with using masses of drones for demining btw:

1. Although individual drones are small, massing thousands of drones, supplies and controlling equipment in a limited area is certain to picked up by an opponent. (Not to mention the force that is actually going to go through the minefield...) So you are kind of back to the problem that massing gets detected and probably stopped early. But maybe it is still easier to disperse?

2. I am convinced AI can do it but we are not really there just yet, I think. So, for now you'd have to coordinate lots of remote controlled drones. That doesn't sound so much fun. Plus, as this happens in a small area, jamming is really effective. 

 

The issue with mines able to relocate is that the enemy can put them anywhere, not just in a neatly marked minefield. Safe lanes can (and will) be monitored. Artillery delivered and now, drone delivered mine to reseed a safe lane will be a constant threat. But the problem with mobile mines is that they can be placed anywhere along an LOC. Now you don’t just have to monitor safe lanes but kms of LOC. Mines with legs are a much larger problem than a few hundred meters in a minefield. They are a minefield that can move. So now you need very high res ISR able to spot a small target on the ground just about everywhere.

And then we get into standoff smart mines. EFPs or able to fire smart submunitions. All those little cheap processors are going to make life miserable for everyone when it comes to mine warfare.

Edited 5 hours ago by The_Capt

[Battlefront.com]

8 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I would describe the conditions the 47th had to deal with last year as nothing short of hellish. Conditions that I doubt even a NATO brigade would of been able to cope with on its own. 

The difference comes from not telegraphing to the Russians where exactly you were going to attack for 6 months and a breaching operation that clearly had a bit more thought into it than the 47th driving into thick minefields under overwatch and helicopter gunship fire. The Kursk operations clearly had a bit more planning put into them and the conditions are more favourable, this does not make it easy or a breeze however.

Obviously the 2023 counter offensive fighting was especially intense and ferocious against the most well defended sections of the line, but that should not take away the fact that the AFU pulled off some pretty difficult breaching here. While the Russian defence is less concentrated, the same is true for the AFU units attacking. Source below indicates perhaps two battalions taking part in the fresh incursion. 

Ukrainian sources certainly indicate that the most recent incursion is being quite a bit more defended against than the first, presumably owing to Russians actually having reserves in the area now. 

https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/09/16/forbes-ukraine-expands-incursion-into-russia-with-new-thrust-into-kursk-oblast/

This source at least suggests Khorne group are claiming to be going up against VDV as well as conscripts. 

I stand by my assessment that it is appropriate to call these defenses "lightly defended" using standard military concepts of the term "light".  This is an objective statement that characterizes the nature of the Russian forces defending.  OPSEC, planning, etc. are absolutely irrelevant when making this sort of statement.

As I pointed out, the videos we have seen do not indicate that the border area was "heavily" defended.  Broad daylight breaching with light armored vehicles as part of the operation, no indications of destroyed vehicles, and very little evidence of defensive fires (light, scattered artillery and what appears to be a single unguided attack helicopter rocket) all seem to corroborate that the area was NOT "heavily" defended.  Reports from the ground, timeline, and rate of advance beyond the immediate breach also reinforce the view that Russian defenses were not very effective.

In military terms, especially when compared to last summer and the Kherson counter offensive in 2022, this was "a breeze".  You can dispute me characterizing it as such, but I think I have a better case to make than you claims this is an example of a successful mechanized breaching operation against a heavily defended sector of front.  It wasn't that, for sure.

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

34 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

As I pointed out, the videos we have seen do not indicate that the border area was "heavily" defended.  Broad daylight breaching with light armored vehicles as part of the operation, no indications of destroyed vehicles, and very little evidence of defensive fires (light, scattered artillery and what appears to be a single unguided attack helicopter rocket) all seem to corroborate that the area was NOT "heavily" defended.  Reports from the ground, timeline, and rate of advance beyond the immediate breach also reinforce the view that Russian defenses were not very effective.

I literally linked a master thread earlier that showed there was reasonably extensive combat in that area with numerous destroyed AFU vehicles. (mostly MRAPs) The drone strikes on trench lines show visible Russian solders and also are from the same area. (Its all been geolocated) The AFU also reported there was at least an attempt by the Russians to have strongpoints behind the fortifications, hence the geolocated bomb strikes wiping out certain buildings identified as such after the breach was made.  

It was not heavily defended (I never claimed this) But its really starting to take the mick to claim this place was lightly / barely defended, especially when considering the attacking force was really quite modest and took losses doing so. This was a defended line supported by drones and artillery support and was by no means easy to crack. 
 

Again, click into that link and you will see all the subsequent geolocated posts. 

Edited 12 hours ago by ArmouredTopHat

[The_Capt]

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I stand by my assessment that it is appropriate to call these defenses "lightly defended" using standard military concepts of the term "light".  This is an objective statement that characterizes the nature of the Russian forces defending.  OPSEC, planning, etc. are absolutely irrelevant when making this sort of statement.

As I pointed out, the videos we have seen do not indicate that the border area was "heavily" defended.  Broad daylight breaching with light armored vehicles as part of the operation, no indications of destroyed vehicles, and very little evidence of defensive fires (light, scattered artillery and what appears to be a single unguided attack helicopter rocket) all seem to corroborate that the area was NOT "heavily" defended.  Reports from the ground, timeline, and rate of advance beyond the immediate breach also reinforce the view that Russian defenses were not very effective.

In military terms, especially when compared to last summer and the Kherson counter offensive in 2022, this was "a breeze".  You can dispute me characterizing it as such, but I think I have a better case to make than you claims this is an example of a successful mechanized breaching operation against a heavily defended sector of front.  It wasn't that, for sure.

Steve

I don’t understand. The article in the link posted quotes:

“The Russian defensive efforts in the area reportedly rely heavily on young conscripts, who are poorly-trained and, according to Kremlin policy, not supposed to see combat. This reliance on inexperienced troops is cited as a key factor in the rapid Ukrainian advance, mirroring similar issues faced by Russian forces during the initial Ukrainian thrust into Kursk Oblast in August.”

And an embedded link back to an earlier article makes no mention of heavy fighting:

https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/09/16/forbes-ukraine-expands-incursion-into-russia-with-new-thrust-into-kursk-oblast/

To use these sources as proof of a heavily defended breach is outright fabrication. If the UA was capable of negating heavy RA defences on a minefield, breaching and then pushing 20kms deep…then why are they f#cking around up in Kursk?! They would be using whatever new magic wand they have down south to put the RA back on its heels.

Or is this another “so desperate to see amor work that we are hallucinating” situation? Here is the thing, what the OP and a few others do not get, and after a few hundred pages I think we can say this definitively, is that none of this is about them or their favourite toys. The “yay tanks” crowd is the most self-obsessed bunch we have seen in awhile on this thread. Not since MAGA and pro-Russian drive bys have we seen devotees this far into their own supply. If UA tanks and mech suddenly started working today, I - as would many on this thread- would be the first to celebrate. Because this would mean that a viable way ahead to regain offensive initiative and drive the RA back would be on the table. It would mean that an end to this brutal war would be in sight. It would mean that warfare still makes sense. It would mean that we are back on a very well understood map. Battlefield symmetry would mean manoeuvre is back, and the means to achieve it within our hands.

But that is not the reality we live in right now and clapping our hands together as hard as we can is not going to change that. Until we can see some hard evidence and proof of what Kursk was, or was not, we can only go by what we are given. It was a sector being defended by border guards and FSB initially. And now has had conscripts dumped on it with a few VDV sprinkled in. This appears as a low priority sector for the RA before the attack. The minefields and defences are not in layered belts as we have seen down south. And they are not heavily defended as far as we can see. We do not see evidence of heavy fighting or losses on either side in these attacks. 

If true believers wanna cling onto their tank stuffies and start drawing big blue lines on the map…go for it. But I am not willing to break out the champagne yet.

[Holien]

Interesting development? Russia trying new methods of attack with plausible denial ability?

Any of our Scandinavian friends know more about this?

 

 

[poesel]

13 hours ago, Fenris said:

A little appreciation for quietly helping in ways that don't usually make headlines.

 

I'd like to clarify that the €50m are funds for continuing the operation which has so far treated 1173 Ukrainian soldiers. The article does not mention the costs up to now.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Holien said:

Interesting development? Russia trying new methods of attack with plausible denial ability?

Any of our Scandinavian friends know more about this?

 

 

Looks and feels a little Ukrainian IO-esque. That boat is about 40kms away from that base and would have to navigate a lot of rocks to get close. Some of those villages on the coast might be on concern. Norwegian Navy could just sink the thing well before it becomes a serious threat.

[ArmouredTopHat]

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1fk0f3a/ukrainian_t72_firing_at_russian_positions_on_the/

Seems to be a bit of a surge of tank videos lately, perhaps they can hear Capt yapping so much about how useless they are. (In his view)

Still, pretty good to see, though I will always be horrified when most of the T series platforms have to turn in order to withdraw from firing positions just to such abysmal reverse speeds. Still baffles me that only a handle of countries ever fixed this issue. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

nearly 40k combat soldiers is not what I would consider a low priority front at this point.

Edited 2 hours ago by ArmouredTopHat

[Kraft]

2 hours ago, Holien said:

Interesting development? Russia trying new methods of attack with plausible denial ability?

Its a repeat offender

https://maritime-executive.com/article/cargo-ship-loaded-with-ammonium-nitrate-order-out-of-tormsoe-by-norwegians

For the scale, this ship has 20000 tons, Beirut explosion had ~2750 and damaged homes 10km away and could be heard at a distance of 240km.

Edited 2 hours ago by Kraft

[acrashb]

"Ukraine May Have A New Strategy In Russia’s Kursk Oblast—Move Fast And Surround Thousands Of Russian Troops"

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/09/16/ukraine-may-have-a-new-strategy-in-russias-kursk-oblast-move-fast-and-surround-thousands-of-russian-troops/

 

[Battlefront.com]

10 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I literally linked a master thread earlier that showed there was reasonably extensive combat in that area with numerous destroyed AFU vehicles. (mostly MRAPs) The drone strikes on trench lines show visible Russian solders and also are from the same area. (Its all been geolocated) The AFU also reported there was at least an attempt by the Russians to have strongpoints behind the fortifications, hence the geolocated bomb strikes wiping out certain buildings identified as such after the breach was made.  

It was not heavily defended (I never claimed this) But its really starting to take the mick to claim this place was lightly / barely defended, especially when considering the attacking force was really quite modest and took losses doing so. This was a defended line supported by drones and artillery support and was by no means easy to crack. 
 

Again, click into that link and you will see all the subsequent geolocated posts. 

I not only still stand by my previous statements about "lightly defended", but also that you are using common military terminology in a way that I do not find consistent with standard uses. 

First, of course there were SOME Russian forces there.  If there weren't, I would have used the term "undefended", not "lightly defended".

Second, of course those defending Russian forces were armed with weapons capable of inflicting losses.  If they weren't, I would have used the term "undefended", not "lightly defended".

Third, it is not surprising or inconsistent with "lightly defended" for Ukraine to have suffered losses given there were Russian defenders armed with weapons capable of inflicting losses.  Otherwise I would have characterized the nature of the light defenses in a separate way, such as "ineffectively defended".  This is a similar qualification applied to Iraqi defenses in 1991 and 2003, which largely fit the term "heavily defended" (in places, at least) and yet in reality offered almost no effective resistance.

Fourth, we have Ukrainian forces breaching in broad daylight using a seemingly high proportion of light armored vehicles.  If they could use that force to breach "heavily fortified, heavily defended" lines within a few hours and then advance 10s of KMs interior, then we should be having a completely different discussion.  Because I for one do not understand how this could be possible, given what we know about warfare today.

To summarize, you are mischaracterizing the various Kursk breaching operations according to standard military analytical terminology.  This makes your position inconsistent with objective military analysis.  However, your position is entirely consistent with your bias towards heavy armor.

To be even more short, and more blunt, you are not being objective.

Steve

[Lethaface]

16 hours ago, sburke said:

in terms of masses of drones I am not sure I agree. The supplies and controlling equipment could be a huge distance away.  The controller could be connected via antenna, so I don't know what the limiting factor there is on when distance becomes an issue. The drones themselves are the only thing that needs to be near the breech.

I'm a bit in the middle on the feasibility of large complicated UAV centric operations in the near term. 

Zooming out, all technology is available. From the distributed systems architecture, networking, blablabla, to the business-end hardware. But it hasn't been implemented / integrated into developed, tested and fielded solutions, yet (afaik).

If you look at Ukraine's successful drone units, they are hybrid IT devops/soldier teams as they need continuous changes to software (mainly for EW reasons) in order to keep the drones flying. These drones don't do complicated networked stuff, they are directed by humans who are in contact with the complicated network stuff to know where to fly the drones.

Scaling all of that up to drone operations like the one envisioned here (having special mine clearing drones, smart enough to clear all those lanes and work together), is not an easy feat or task.
I guess some architect board will also come in and tell that the basic system capability shouldn't be focused only on clearing lanes in minefields, but rather that should be a service (pool) of a larger generic system architecture.
The personnel involved who can operate all these stuff, interoperability between different systems, it's quite the program :). Lord has mercy on the soul volunteering to manage that :D (or rather their partners / family).
Simpler IT projects have taken years and cost hundreds of millions, ultimately go nowhere, when not properly managed. The requirements management by itself is quite the challenge imo, with lots of options for scope creep and defunding risks or general risk avoidance snafubar politics.

The costs involved on the personnel side is also not small, although finding them might be the bigger challenge (for Ukraine it 'helps' that their country is invaded, otherwise the army has to compete with the job  market for tech personnel).

I think we will first see smaller or rather less complicated drone operations. Those can be scary enough if employed in numbers. If I had to invest, I'd start out with a KISS approach and keep the UAVs simple as possible. 
F8ck them and their mines, if my drone swarms kills all defenders anywhere near those mines I can just deal with them later at my leisure if I have business there.

Edited 49 minutes ago by Lethaface

[Battlefront.com]

55 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1fk0f3a/ukrainian_t72_firing_at_russian_positions_on_the/

Seems to be a bit of a surge of tank videos lately, perhaps they can hear Capt yapping so much about how useless they are. (In his view)

If this is what you think The_Capt and I are arguing, then your reading comprehension is either naturally terrible or is being negatively impacted by your pro-tank bias.  Because both of us, on more occasions than can be counted, have clarified that we are not saying that tanks are "useless", rather they are "not useful in relation to their costs and traditional expectations".

You can continue to create strawmen arguments, but you should question if this is really a good thing if you're trying to sway people to your side of the argument.  Repeated use of strawmen arguments is generally a sign of weakness.

55 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Still, pretty good to see, though I will always be horrified when most of the T series platforms have to turn in order to withdraw from firing positions just to such abysmal reverse speeds. Still baffles me that only a handle of countries ever fixed this issue. 

What exactly was this video showing other than a tank driving around just long enough to fire a few rounds at something we can't see and then withdrawing without (I hope) being disabled or destroyed after the end of the uploaded video?

Or maybe you can clarify for me what I missed in this video.  What was it shooting at?  Did it hit or have an impact on the target?  If it did, was there a direct correlation between what it did and some larger action that we didn't see on the video?  If it did, could an IFV, MRAP type vehicle, or drone bomber or two have affected the same outcome?

Can you answer any of my questions?  If not, then on what basis have you concluded that this particular video is an example bolstering your argument that tanks are a) useful in a tactical sense, b) useful in a way that isn't redundant with other options, and c) useful in a way that justifies the disproportionally higher cost of the platform.

Standing by.

Steve

[acrashb]

34 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

To be even more short, and more blunt, you are not being objective.

Having blocked ATH and generally slid past any posts that quote his/her posts, my life is simpler and faster.

For a good long time now, the arguments have been simply past each other.  Not sure what useful thing is being achieved.  Am sure it's cluttering the thread without, to my mind, anything useful having been added for ages.  And perhaps taking your time away from more productive things - while your time is your own, somewhat selfishly I (and presumably others) enjoy and benefit from your analysis of things other than 'tanks are dead', because a) they truly are or aren't and b) that dead horse has been beaten six feet under.  I can't even tell if it was once a horse or just a bunch of squirrels all hit at the same time.
 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by acrashb