How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

17 hours ago, poesel said:

Rheinmetall asked about €150m for 24 of them. So 'just' about €6m a pop.

Thanks for that.  I don't think that's an accurate number to go by.  A recent order by the BW for 18x A7+ models came out to be about €29m each.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-aims-buy-18-leopard-2-tanks-545-mln-euros-source-2023-05-12/

I think the explanation here is the funny math that goes on with procurement.  There's the cost of the base units, the cost of extra features, and the sustainment costs.  We see this sort of accounting cost splitting with other systems, such as Abrams supposedly costing $6m base cost, but $10m or more when other things are added onto them at the time of purchase.  In addition to this I've seen estimates that it costs $2m per year to operate/maintain an Abrams in peacetime.

This article puts the acquisition price of a Leopard 2 at around $6m:

https://www.newsweek.com/cost-western-battle-tanks-m1-abrams-leopard-2-challenger-2-1776725

So, it looks like if we do an apples to apples comparison an Ogre engineering vehicle costs a little more than a single Leopard 2 on the front end.  Given that it's a specialized, low production vehicle the price comparison seems plausible to me.

Note, though, that this doesn't change the argument I made about these being a bad investment.  It just means, on acquisition costs alone, it's not "whatever is bigger than order of magnitude" out of whack.  With all the the other costs factored in, I think we're still looking at "whatever is bigger than order of magnitude" out of whack.

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

18 minutes ago, acrashb said:

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

Touche, ty for letting me know so I can also ignore you and give you the same courtesy. 

Would do the same for Capt but I have to put up with his posts due to admin. Yay. 
 

30 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

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.

Can you go a single post without constantly claiming my logic is flawed. You talk about changing opinions but constantly belittling me on this is getting tiring. I was making a joke. 

You do not in fact have to jump on every post I make to do this. I am just sharing what I find relevant to this course of discussion. 

 

 

30 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

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.

I simply noted an uptick in tank POV videos / interviews lately with an example video to go with it. I was not making any other claim based on that. Said arguments have been beaten to death at this point and I am actively trying to avoid going into them again unless there is new information.

Combat footage is combat footage. Please stop getting on my case. I have answered you multiple times at this point and dont really want to sound like a damn broken record player. Opinions are clearly different at this point and neither party is much interested in changing that without conclusive data. 

Edited 6 hours ago by ArmouredTopHat

[Battlefront.com]

9 minutes ago, acrashb said:

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.
 

 

It's a fair point.  For sure I don't envision ATH being able to put together anything that would cause me to reevaluate my position.  In fact, the more he argues the more convinced I become.  But here's the problem I face...

There are things that I need to do outside of this Forum that run into ATH type thinking.  Some of those things have an impact on shaping Combat Mission or, at a minimum, defending/justifying decisions made that are evident in Combat Mission.  I can assure you that ATH's desire to retain heavy armor in its traditional place of honor is not his alone.  In fact, there's entire swaths of the military that hold the same opinions (for reasons we've discussed).

Therefore, what you see me doing here is preparing myself for more, shall we say, consequential discussions.  In fact, I had one yesterday with key members of the CM team.

I also think it is useful for other CMers to see this discussion play out in detail as CM3 will almost certainly need a base of players who have already gone through this thought process in detail and can help us (CM's makers) defend our decisions and the outcomes as being reasonable.

Steve

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1836755560592507004

Small armed UGV in action at Kursk, not too often we see the AFU employ them, or at least see footage of them in action. 

Edited 6 hours ago by ArmouredTopHat

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Would do the same for Capt but I have to put up with his posts due to admin. Yay.

The_Capt has no special distinctions from regular members.  You can block him as you can anybody else.  You can't block me, though, because I am special

4 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Can you go a single post without constantly claiming my logic is flawed. You talk about changing opinions but constantly belittling me on this is getting tiring. I was making a joke.

It did not come off as a joke, and even if it was intended as such it wasn't very funny.  It seemed more of a snide comment and so I treated it as such.

As for belittling you, I don't know what else to do when you seem to repeatedly discard/forget what is being argued.  I know I've put in a lot of time and effort to treat your arguments respectfully and refute them properly.  To see that work being discarded/forgotten is frustrating.

4 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I simply noted an uptick in tank POV videos / interviews lately with an example video to go with it. I was not making any other claim based on that. Said arguments have been beaten to death at this point and I am actively trying to avoid going into them again unless there is new information.

Combat footage is combat footage. Please stop getting on my case. I have answered you multiple times at this point and dont really want to sound like a damn broken record player. Opinions are clearly different at this point and neither party is much interested in changing that without conclusive data. 

Then you should not start off a post of combat footage with a commentary that is framing said video as being supportive of your pro-heavy armor argument.

So yes, combat footage is combat footage and it's good to have posted here.  So next time you post combat footage for the sake of posting combat footage, I suggest not encasing it in an opinion (or a "joke") that digs at something larger.

Steve

[Carolus]

13 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1836755560592507004

Small armed UGV in action at Kursk, not too often we see the AFU employ them, or at least see footage of them in action. 

Look at that little guy weaving its way through the mines on the road.

If only he had three or four buddies to follow him. That could take and hold a positon.

Edited 6 hours ago by Carolus

[ArmouredTopHat]

21 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I can assure you that ATH's desire to retain heavy armor in its traditional place of honor is not his alone.

This is not what I have really been arguing. 

One last time in short so I can just refer to this post for the future every time someone continues to twist my words. 
 

• Tanks need design changes to improve utility in drone environments and mitigate constraints.
• Doctrine likely needs to change as well. Tanks are not the only battlefield platform suffering from constraints to mechanised warfare. 
• Tanks still have a role to play in combat, primarily due to having attributes that nothing else has on the battlefield.
• Just because a tank is relatively expensive does not mean its suddenly not worth having, even with a battlefield filled with cheap things (its not the only thing on the battlefield that's expensive)
• I personally look closely at what the two active combatant nations are saying about their tanks and believe they currently have the best understanding of the tank in this environment. Considering just about the worst thing either side says about tanks is that they are no longer front and centre like they would of been in the cold war yet will still be on the battlefield is telling. 
• UGVs if found to be sound and practical are very likely to potentially replace tanks in role, but this is at least a decade or two away at minimum.

 

11 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The_Capt has no special distinctions from regular members.  You can block him as you can anybody else.  You can't block me, though, because I am special

Interesting.


 

Edited 6 hours ago by ArmouredTopHat

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1836755560592507004

Small armed UGV in action at Kursk, not too often we see the AFU employ them, or at least see footage of them in action. 

Now this is some interesting footage!  While we've seen hundreds of videos of tanks blasting away at things, there's precious few videos of armed UGVs at all.  In fact, this is the only one I can think of.

So what are we seeing here?

A very small, wheeled UGV (looks to be one of the home built Ukrainian types) effectively bypassing traditional means of blocking easy road travel (i.e. surface mines) in order to engage (it appears) a strong point located within the treeline with a MG of some sort.  Even though this is at close range the Russian defenders aren't knocking it out.  Further, it is viewed (correctly or incorrectly) as a threat sufficient enough to warrant using mortars on it.  Then we see Ukrainian infantry advancing in the same area, presumably made safer by the UGV's actions (maybe the drone spotted Russians running away?).

Lots of things to digest, but the one that struck me is something I've not really thought of before.  And that is the smaller size of the UGV and the fact that it is not crewed means artillery has to pretty much score a direct hit in order to put an end to it operating in that place and time.  A crewed vehicle would be large enough that a nearby impact could damage it and, as a result, the crew has to presume that staying put in the middle of pretty accurate artillery fire (as was the case in this example) is a bad idea.

To summarize, the UGV is less likely to be damaged/destroyed because it is small and, because of that and being unscrewed, stay where it is doing whatever its operators want it to do.  That's two points of effectiveness to note.

Steve

[Baneman]

23 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Touche, ty for letting me know so I can also ignore you and give you the same courtesy. 

Would do the same for Capt but I have to put up with his posts due to admin. Yay. 

You could always do what the rest of us who haven't blocked you do - scroll past.

24 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I simply noted an uptick in tank POV videos / interviews lately with an example video to go with it. I was not making any other claim based on that. 

Actually you used it to claim that the_Capt was saying tanks are useless and that he was wrong.

 

Thing is, you haven't said anything different/new in the last couple of hundred pages and even if all the videos you link showed exactly what you claim they show, they are still outliers.

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

This is not what I have really been arguing. 

One last time in short so I can just refer to this post for the future every time someone continues to twist my words. 
 

• Tanks need design changes to improve utility in drone environments and mitigate constraints.
• Doctrine likely needs to change as well. Tanks are not the only battlefield platform suffering from constraints to mechanised warfare. 
• Tanks still have a role to play in combat, primarily due to having attributes that nothing else has on the battlefield.
• Just because a tank is expensive does not mean its suddenly not worth having, even with a battlefield filled with cheap things (its not the only thing on the battlefield that's expensive)
• I personally look closely at what the two active combatant nations are saying about their tanks and believe they currently have the best understanding of the tank in this environment. Considering just about the worst thing either side says about tanks is that they are no longer front and centre yet will still be on the battlefield is telling. 
• UGVs if found to be sound and practical are very likely to potentially replace tanks in role.

 

All of these points have been refuted, and in some cases trashed, but counter arguments.  I don't want to rehash any one of them, but I will point out that you never responded to the Dutch decision you "looked careful at", but apparently missed it was a political move by novice politicians and that it likely won't happen.

And as I said, I find value in sparring with you because you're not the only one that holds these views.  And to your credit, you argue them as well as they can be.

1 minute ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Interesting.


 

Yes, that is interesting.  I have absolutely no idea how that can be possible.  The_Capt has absolutely zero membership differences from anybody else.  Maybe there is some internal rule that you can't ignore someone with X number of posts?  I'll look into that.

Steve

 

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, Baneman said:

You could always do what the rest of us who haven't blocked you do - scroll past.

Actually you used it to claim that the_Capt was saying tanks are useless and that he was wrong.

 

Thing is, you haven't said anything different/new in the last couple of hundred pages and even if all the videos you link showed exactly what you claim they show, they are still outliers.

Good.  So it wasn't all in my head as ATH suggested it was

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

25 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

(maybe the drone spotted Russians running away?).

I'm pretty sure its Russians running away.

25 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Lots of things to digest, but the one that struck me is something I've not really thought of before.  And that is the smaller size of the UGV and the fact that it is not crewed means artillery has to pretty much score a direct hit in order to put an end to it operating in that place and time.  A crewed vehicle would be large enough that a nearby impact could damage it and, as a result, the crew has to presume that staying put in the middle of pretty accurate artillery fire (as was the case in this example) is a bad idea.

The small size is certainly a very useful attribute, both for evading and avoiding mines and for being a bugger to hit with things the Russians usually throw at stuff attacking them (Artillery). Then again, I cant imagine any sort of reasonable firepower applied to said UGV is going to be healthy for it. Wouldn't any GPMG with appropriate armour piercing ammunition be a serious issue for said platform?

I suppose at the very least its a great tool for flushing out or revealing potential threats for heavier vehicles. Light recon is certainly an area where UGVs can really dominate. (Certainly better than sending a Humvee forward and risking both it and its crew) 

Edited 5 hours ago by ArmouredTopHat

[Carolus]

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

To summarize, the UGV is less likely to be damaged/destroyed because it is small and, because of that and being unscrewed, stay where it is doing whatever its operators want it to do.  That's two points of effectiveness to note.

Steve

Uff. With my very limited CM experience, this means that calling emergency mortars to suppress an enemy MG or field gun would be basically over if it was an UGV. You could call indirect fire on that thing and it would just sit there and happily blast away at your squad as long as the operator wants. It is an MG team that is immune to morale loss and pinning and advances stoically through a barrage or small arms fire.

In game terms, this is basically cheating.

Reminds me of the Ukrainians using a remote controlled MG turret in 2022 in a trench which scored dozens of kills and the Russians didn't know why they can't suppress it.

Edited 6 hours ago by Carolus
autocorrect

[ArmouredTopHat]

11 minutes ago, Baneman said:

You could always do what the rest of us who haven't blocked you do - scroll past.

I did not want to block people until they started announcing loudly that they were doing it to me. I value other peoples opinions but that level of rudeness for shady reasons only deserves the same level of response in turn. Where was this comment in response to Capts long essay about me being some sort of secret Rheinmetall stooge?
 

11 minutes ago, Baneman said:

Actually you used it to claim that the_Capt was saying tanks are useless and that he was wrong.

Where did I say this in that post? It was as Steve said a bad joke and not a serious attempt to make an argument out of anything. If I get to be generalised as a tank enjoyer, why cant I say the same about those who clearly think they have no role going forward?

Edited 6 hours ago by ArmouredTopHat

[dan/california]

2 minutes ago, Carolus said:

Uff. With my very limited CM experience, this means that calling emergency mortars to suppress an enemy MG or field gun would be basically over if it was an UGV. You could call indirect fire on that thing and it would just sit there and happily blast away at your squad as long as the operator wants. It is an MG team that is immune to morale loss and pinning and advances stoically through a barrage or small arms fire.

In game terms, this is basically cheating.

Reminds me of the Ukrainians using a remote controlled MG turret in 2022 in a trench which scored dozens of kills and the Russians didn't know why they can't suppress it.

Exactly this, it is infinitely easier to tell a robot to hold a position to the bitter end. Or do do something blatantly suicidal that advantages the larger operation. Many of the robots are DESIGNED to be suicidal. The effects on the math are simply huge.

[Battlefront.com]

12 minutes ago, Carolus said:

Uff. With my very limited CM experience, this means that calling emergency mortars to suppress an enemy MG or field gun would be basically over if it was an UGV. You could call indirect fire on that thing and it would just sit there and happily blast away at your squad as long as the operator wants. It is an MG team that is immune to morale loss and pinning and advances stoically through a barrage or small arms fire.

In game terms, this is basically cheating.

Reminds me of the Ukrainians using a remote controlled MG turret in 2022 in a trench which scored dozens of kills and the Russians didn't know why they can't suppress it.

Yes, and I can say we've already experienced this in CM2 Pro because we have armed UGVs.  They are similar to a heavy weapon crew with a single Fanatic manning it.  We've all experienced this sort of thing going back to CMBO (for those who played that far back).  In fact, I think many of us can probably vaguely remember some part of a battle where this sort of thing happened and how frustrating it was.

This is how the Russians must have felt when they were attacking the Ukrainian soldier who fought off and killed a BMP and several Russian dismounts well after most soldiers would have buggered out or (as his helper) holed up in a bunker.

Anyway, it is important for us to model this correctly. The only factor I can see that we need to somehow incorporate is the UGV's command structure imposing some sort of incentive/disincentive regarding the safety of the vehicle.  It's one thing to lose a potentially expensive piece of equipment according to acceptable parameters, it's another to lose it trying to drive it Moscow "just to screw with Ivan".

In other words, we do need to figure out how to avoid players using these things in a "gamey" way.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

21 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Wouldn't any GPMG with appropriate armour piercing ammunition be a serious issue for said platform?

It sure would.  But to do that you have to put your head up and expose yourself to the wrath of the borg!

This system, as with UAVs, exposes yet more flaws in relying upon isolated strong points.  Interlocking defensive positions could have fixed this.

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

It sure would.  But to do that you have to put your head up and expose yourself to the wrath of the borg!

This system, as with UAVs, exposes yet more flaws in relying upon isolated strong points.  Interlocking defensive positions could have fixed this.

Steve

According to the original source of the video, the Russians also tried using FPVs on the drone without too much effect, so its not only a good showing for a UGV and being practical for a recon / seek and destroy role, but also that of drone on drone violence. Then again, I think that could just be down to the FPV inaccuracy that seems to effects the Russians a fair bit more than the AFU. (There was a video of recent FPV footages from a Russian source that shows them...hitting trees for some reason)

The source also claimed the Russians fired RPGs at the UGV before bugging out, so they did at least try to put up a fight before retreating. 

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

The source also claimed the Russians fired RPGs at the UGV before bugging out, so they did at least try to put up a fight before retreating. 

A smaller target that does not care at all about near misses is a militarily useful thing.

[ArmouredTopHat]

https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1836777247312621671

I swear the Russians are having weekly meetings where they decide Dr Evil style what sickening crime they should do next. This week it was bomb a nursing home. 

(Embeds dont seem to be working 100% atm)

Edited 5 hours ago by ArmouredTopHat

[ArmouredTopHat]

3 minutes ago, dan/california said:

A smaller target that does not care at all about near misses is a militarily useful thing.

Agreed, its why I am a little confused why we dont see more remote sentry gun type arrangements outside of adhoc modifications in the conflict. I would have thought it would be far more prolific given you avoid a lot of the disadvantages of such a system by employing it in a static position. 

Having something remote to cover a manned position with enfilading fire from a flank for instance would strike me as very useful when the Russians make their next meat assault. 

Edited 5 hours ago by ArmouredTopHat

[acrashb]

55 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

[...]Some of those things have an impact on shaping Combat Mission or, at a minimum, defending/justifying decisions made that are evident in Combat Mission. [...]

 

Thank you.  That clarifies my head-scratching as to why Steve, to all appearances considerably brighter than a stunted and underfed mule, would continue to engage.  

My 2 cents: put tanks in CM3, make them expensive to reflect the base cost, make them all _very rare_ and therefore more expensive to reflect the few that survive interdicted movement to the tactical area simulated by CM, and watch them burn in partially-cleared minefield lanes.  I think of buying MBTs as a self-correcting desire  in that context.

 

[acrashb]

13 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

In other words, we do need to figure out how to avoid players using these things in a "gamey" way.

Like half track rushes and trucks being used to flush hidden locations.

[dan/california]

22 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

In other words, we do need to figure out how to avoid players using these things in a "gamey" way.

This gets to a hard question though, what is gamey? Blatantly using a manned HUMMV for recon by death is clearly gamey. In real life the crew might very well refuse the order, or execute it with such a lack of enthusiasm that it amounts to the same thing. Sacrificing a UGV to get a significant position or unit on the other side to "expose itself to the wrath of the borg" might make perfect sense.

By the way "CM3 The Wrath Of The Borg" has a certain ring to it...

Edit: And recon by death seems to be standard procedure for the Russians, that also has to be considered in defining "gamey"

Edited 5 hours ago by dan/california

[Kharnvor]

Something I've been mulling over the last couple days. 

For breaching minefields, I had a crazy idea of a UGV that is essentially a motor, big tires, and a line charge on a spool. Something like a stripped down ATV with a mini MICLIC.

The idea would be to drive it up to the minefield, drive a stake in the ground with one end of the charge attached then race into the minefield laying the charge as it goes. Once it reaches the end it can detonate or drop the spool if you want it reusable. Probably be controlled by wire with that integrated into the spool.

You could run dozens of them in parallel for redundancy and wide lanes. They would be pretty survivable I'd think due to speed and relatively small size. 

If the defenders try to drop artillery on them they're just helping you really. ATGMs would be massive overkill and if it sets off the line charge when it hits then bonus.

I'm sure there are a million reasons this won't work so feel free to list a few .