How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[A Canadian Cat]

51 minutes ago, holoween said:

To quickly summarize the entire tank is dead discussion:

1. On the tactical level the tanks impact has been reduced from its all time hights but currently still remains reasonably usefull to somewhere between situationally slightly useful on defense to near irrelevancy on offence. Future designs and upgrades are not particularly likely to fundamentally change that.

2. On the operational level on the tanks side nothing changed about the supplies it needs but its supply columns are potentially under more stress from long range fires.

3. On the strategic level tanks are really expensive for what they can provide and the effects dont justify the expense.

So from a defense procurement and development view you really want to invest heavily into drones and drone defense for the land forces as that is likely what majorily decides the outcome of a land fight going forward.

Fixed that for ya.

They cannot support full mech break out because the enemy can see them coming 100 miles away, they get wasted by hand held ATGMs, larger ATGM, FPV drones, drones calling artillery and attack helos 10km back. They are around on the battlefield and we see them get used for stuff - piece meal and as short range artillery. That's not quite the same as reasonably useful - that's we have them what can we do with them.

[sburke]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

A lot of the counter arguments got drowned in the last few hundred pages of posting sadly. 

But to reiterate while attempting avoiding the pitfall of repeating what has been said:

I actually agree with Steve and co about the need to adapt and have a hard think about force generation going forward. Failures of NATO MIC to have proper reserves of arty ammunition and such as an example is a major problem that needs both scrutiny and improvements asap. In that same vein we know there are procurement issues with western countries (though at least the hardware at least works most of the time, so its not exactly the worst when it comes to scandals)

I'll just use this example as where I think you go a different route than Steve etal.

Why don't we have proper reserves?  Why didn't we plan for more quantity?  The rationale goes back to how did we think we were going to fight wars.  If our maneuver concepts still worked then we likely had enough.  The problem wasn't that we just figured low, it was that we figured on the wrong war.

Phase one of this war when Russia launched its massive assault crashed and burned badly.  Some of that has to do with Russian planning and the capabilities they actually had versus the ones they told themselves they had.  The other aspect though is that war had fundamentally changed over the last few years and we had quite a few hints (Azerbaijan for example).

We can produce more, but that seems to be a concession that the war in Ukraine is how war looks now.  I would say that this is how war looks in the transition.  Transition to what is the big question.  This is where the skepticism on tanks, breaching, offensive doctrine all comes from.  A perspective that the ground is shifting under our feet and it isn't clear where it will settle or even when.  Technology is moving faster every day.  What we see as radical change at the moment is likely to look silly in a few years.  Thinking we have the answers now and solutions (just make more) is assuming we have learned enough lessons.  I think we have only begun to learn and it is like being told, hey bone up on Japanese cause we are sending you to translate for the President on his visit to the Tokyo summit next week.  We know some fundamental things so the president bows and says thank you to everything.  No idea what the other guys is saying but he looks confused, please let this be over soon and don't throw up when eating the Sushi.

[holoween]

27 minutes ago, A Canadian Cat said:

Fixed that for ya.

They cannot support full mech break out because the enemy can see them coming 100 miles away, they get wasted by hand held ATGMs, larger ATGM, FPV drones, drones calling artillery and attack helos 10km back. They are around on the battlefield and we see them get used for stuff - piece meal and as short range artillery. That's not quite the same as reasonably useful - that's we have them what can we do with them.

being counterable =/= being irrelevant

Youre not going to bring something that is practically irrelevant for your attack yet whenever tanks can be made available theyre spearheading and supporting attacks.

If you want something thats actually irrelevant then look at sidearms for infantry for example. They are are cheap and available and there are situations where they are a benefit but they are overall irrelevant to any action so noone actually brings them.

Noone brings something irrelevant to a fight for long.

[Butschi]

7 minutes ago, holoween said:

being counterable =/= being irrelevant

Youre not going to bring something that is practically irrelevant for your attack yet whenever tanks can be made available theyre spearheading and supporting attacks.

If you want something thats actually irrelevant then look at sidearms for infantry for example. They are are cheap and available and there are situations where they are a benefit but they are overall irrelevant to any action so noone actually brings them.

Noone brings something irrelevant to a fight for long.

That is a fair point. I think what we see in Ukraine is still skewed, though. Obviously tanks are still being used but isn't this because they either have them or get them for free?

Shouldn't the question be instead: Let's say neither Ukraine nor Russia had any tanks but both knew how the battlefield would look like before the war. Let's further assume they had enough time to produce/buy tanks. Would they do so or would they invest the money/production capacity into something else?

[A Canadian Cat]

9 minutes ago, Butschi said:

That is a fair point.

Fair =/= correct though :-). Tanks have had very little effect on the outcome of battles in this war that is why they are nearly irrelevant.

 

9 minutes ago, Butschi said:

I think what we see in Ukraine is still skewed, though. Obviously tanks are still being used but isn't this because they either have them or get them for free?

Yep.

9 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Shouldn't the question be instead: Let's say neither Ukraine nor Russia had any tanks but both knew how the battlefield would look like before the war. Let's further assume they had enough time to produce/buy tanks. Would they do so or would they invest the money/production capacity into something else?

Oh use the money and resources for something else without a doubt.

More IFVs, they are doing more close support of infantry than tanks anyway and you need some safe-ish transport for your soldiers. More drones for ISR, your precision artillery is doing a lot of work and you need to find the bad guys. Precision artillery shells and guns, see previous. FPV drones, for when artillery is doing something else / get the stuff that didn't die or was left abandoned. More fire and forget hand held ATGMs, just in case some dummy brings tanks  plus need to take our the other guys IFVs. More man portable AA, gotta keep those CAS forces away still. More AA batteries, gotta keep those ****ers from hurting civilians as much as possible.

Edited 3 hours ago by A Canadian Cat
typo

[ArmouredTopHat]

22 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Obviously tanks are still being used but isn't this because they either have them or get them for free?

Both sides are going to quite a bit of trouble to produce, maintain and refurbish tanks whenever they can to maintain and expand their tank fleets. Ukraine went as far as to source a variety of MBTs from numerous countries to supplement their numbers to that effect despite the chaotic logistics running 6+ MBT tank types entails. You would think if it was just a case of using them because they got them they would not of done this considering the time and effort required to achieve it. (They are currently training and equipping in Leopard 1s at the moment to further bolster numbers)

Its the same scene for captured tanks, the moment either side can recover a tank they will try and do so so they can make use of it. Clearly they have some sort of relevance on the battlefield. Plenty of anecdotal evidence from both sides infantry to suggest tank fire is pretty lethal and occupies a niche of usefulness alongside the versatility of the platform in general. 

Anything not below grounds needs to be mobile: tanks are mobile and can move into the engagement area in good time (and leave before arty / drones can usually arrive)

Anything on the battlefields needs protection given the variety of munitions that can strike vehicles from long distance : tanks have this

Couple with the fact a tank can deal with the vast majority of ground targets with long range / short range direct fire, and you have a relevant platform that can perform fire missions at close or long range. 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by ArmouredTopHat

[holoween]

14 minutes ago, Butschi said:

That is a fair point. I think what we see in Ukraine is still skewed, though. Obviously tanks are still being used but isn't this because they either have them or get them for free?

Shouldn't the question be instead: Let's say neither Ukraine nor Russia had any tanks but both knew how the battlefield would look like before the war. Let's further assume they had enough time to produce/buy tanks. Would they do so or would they invest the money/production capacity into something else?

Absolutely buy other stuff.

A Canadian Cats list seems perfectly alright for that.

 

[holoween]

4 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Both sides are going to quite a bit of trouble to produce, maintain and refurbish tanks whenever they can to maintain and expand their tank fleets. Ukraine went as far as to source a variety of MBTs from numerous countries to supplement their numbers to that effect. You would think if it was just a case of using them because they got them they would not of done this considering the time and effort required to achieve it. (They are currently training and equipping in Leopard 1s at the moment to further bolster numbers)

Its the same scene for captured tanks, the moment either side can recover a tank they will try and do so so they can make use of it. Clearly they have some sort of relevance on the battlefield. Plenty of anecdotal evidence from both sides infantry to suggest tank fire is pretty lethal and occupies a niche of usefulness alongside the versatility of the platform. 

The money on those is already spend though so it skews the value proposition massively in favour of the tanks.

[ArmouredTopHat]

13 minutes ago, holoween said:

The money on those is already spend though so it skews the value proposition massively in favour of the tanks.

True, I suppose we will know for certain post conflict, If Ukraine puts an extremely low priority on tanks then it would give us a clear picture on how they feel about them. 

The interviews we get from crews at worst indicates that they think they will stay on the battlefield, even with all the limitations in place. 

Edited 2 hours ago by ArmouredTopHat

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

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

 

Your problem space, but a high resolution simulation that can express the difficulties armor and mech are going to continue to have is not a bad idea. Military mindset will pressure you to “fix the game” so tanks can still matter will happen but well modelled contemporary conditions are hard to argue with. Of course there will be some in the ATH camp that will demand that UAS, ISR and PGM be nerfed so that DF can still happen. But the disparity of their positions will become clear by how much you have to nerf. Hell CMBS played on Rookie is damned near what the battlefield looks like. Trying to move anything under those conditions is impossible. Add in realistic drone conditions and it gets harder and harder to argue. So put the tanks in. Stick them all over the place. Then when the player tries to use them and their behaviour starts to look a lot like this war, that is going to get hard to defend.

Of course you are going to get the zealots who will take a tank firing at a treeline or walking over barely defended minefields as solid proof that armor is still a foundational platform for manoeuvre, but there are many in the middle scratching their heads at all this. Simulation may be the only way to really understand a way forward and challenge assumptions. At least for most normal rational observers.

[dan/california]

2 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Your problem space, but a high resolution simulation that can express the difficulties armor and mech are going to continue to have is not a bad idea. Military mindset will pressure you to “fix the game” so tanks can still matter will happen but well modelled contemporary conditions are hard to argue with. Of course there will be some in the ATH camp that will demand that UAS, ISR and PGM be nerfed so that DF can still happen. But the disparity of their positions will become clear by how much you have to nerf. Hell CMBS played on Rookie is damned near what the battlefield looks like. Trying to move anything under those conditions is impossible. Add in realistic drone conditions and it gets harder and harder to argue. So put the tanks in. Stick them all over the place. Then when the player tries to use them and their behaviour starts to look a lot like this war, that is going to get hard to defend.

Of course you are going to get the zealots who will take a tank firing at a treeline or walking over barely defended minefields as solid proof that armor is still a foundational platform for manoeuvre, but there are many in the middle scratching their heads at all this. Simulation may be the only way to really understand a way forward and challenge assumptions. At least for most normal rational observers.

Are we getting that simulation anytime soon? Or even not soon for that matter?

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

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.

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

 

Oh dear Gawd, please let him ignore me.

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

True, I suppose we will know for certain post conflict, If Ukraine puts an extremely low priority on tanks then it would give us a clear picture on how they feel about them.

It also has to do with existing production capacity, institutional bias, and no shortage of desperation.  The fact is that Ukraine and Russia are set up to work with tanks, therefore it is logical that they continue to work with tanks.

Let's put this another way.  Ukraine knows that the tanks it produces and refurbishes are vastly inferior to Western ones.  But they continue to invest in them anyway.  Logically, they would stop spending money on Soviet legacy systems and instead spend that money on fewer Western MBTs.  But they aren't doing that for reasons other than the T type tanks being good investments.

All of that said, I believe the primary reason is that there is not clear cut successor to the tank TODAY.  The ingredients are there, but in some cases the products are not.  Since full replacements for heavy armor (not just MBTs) are not yet available, it makes perfect sense for them to continue spending resources on what is readily available instead of diverting into an R&D hole.  Ukraine does not have the luxury to plan 30 years out.

3 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

True, I suppose we will know for certain post conflict, If Ukraine puts an extremely low priority on tanks then it would give us a clear picture on how they feel about them. 

The interviews we get from crews at worst indicates that they think they will stay on the battlefield, even with all the limitations in place. 

I've been studying warfare for 30+ years.  I have learned that the last person you want to ask about the relevance of a particular weapon is the soldiers on the ground.  They lack the broader perspective necessary to have a consistently valid opinion to express.  Plus, these interviews are selective.  I'd be curious to know what the average grunt in the trench would say if they were given a choice between an IFV or a tank in support.  I'm curious only because I'd like to hear "IFV" in their own words

The example I always go to in this circumstance is a book of WW2 veteran's thoughts on various topics.  There was a section about weapons and in particular the US 60mm mortar.  Some of the soldiers said it was the worst, most useless thing ever invented.  Others held the exact opposite view.  Is it useless or useful?  Well, here we are 80 years on and the US still uses a 60mm mortar and until recently it was nearly identical to the WW2 type.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Your problem space, but a high resolution simulation that can express the difficulties armor and mech are going to continue to have is not a bad idea. Military mindset will pressure you to “fix the game” so tanks can still matter will happen but well modelled contemporary conditions are hard to argue with. Of course there will be some in the ATH camp that will demand that UAS, ISR and PGM be nerfed so that DF can still happen. But the disparity of their positions will become clear by how much you have to nerf. Hell CMBS played on Rookie is damned near what the battlefield looks like. Trying to move anything under those conditions is impossible. Add in realistic drone conditions and it gets harder and harder to argue. So put the tanks in. Stick them all over the place. Then when the player tries to use them and their behaviour starts to look a lot like this war, that is going to get hard to defend.

Of course you are going to get the zealots who will take a tank firing at a treeline or walking over barely defended minefields as solid proof that armor is still a foundational platform for manoeuvre, but there are many in the middle scratching their heads at all this. Simulation may be the only way to really understand a way forward and challenge assumptions. At least for most normal rational observers.

Yeah, funny thing.  We have talked about having a "Nerf mode" for CM3.  Heck, we had the same thought for CM2, but didn't get around to it.  Basically, the idea is to present a very deliberate setting that softens the lethality by reducing various effects (including spotting, armor penetration, etc.).  The reason for this has always been to allow people who aren't good last long enough to have fun so they can then become good at the game.  Now I'm thinking, in addition to this, it would be there for tank lovers to see their tanks last a little longer than they likely would in the real world.

We do not view this as a bad thing to include because it would clearly state that this is a REALISM setting.  Those that play at the lower level aren't playing at a lower level of "difficulty" per say, but rather a lower level of "realism".  They kinda are the same thing, but they kinda aren't.

Steve

[Offshoot]

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

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.

No skin in this game, but from foggy memory, was not something done a while back to enable a post of his to be pinned? And he does have a moderator badge.

[ArmouredTopHat]

https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1836845572923551944

Interesting item for the Radars to pick up....

Edited 1 hour ago by ArmouredTopHat

[sburke]

49 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

No skin in this game, but from foggy memory, was not something done a while back to enable a post of his to be pinned? And he does have a moderator badge.

ssshhhhh your making Steve appear old cause he missed that.

[ArmouredTopHat]

2 hours ago, sburke said:

I'll just use this example as where I think you go a different route than Steve etal.

Why don't we have proper reserves?  Why didn't we plan for more quantity?  The rationale goes back to how did we think we were going to fight wars.  If our maneuver concepts still worked then we likely had enough.  The problem wasn't that we just figured low, it was that we figured on the wrong war.

Phase one of this war when Russia launched its massive assault crashed and burned badly.  Some of that has to do with Russian planning and the capabilities they actually had versus the ones they told themselves they had.  The other aspect though is that war had fundamentally changed over the last few years and we had quite a few hints (Azerbaijan for example).

We can produce more, but that seems to be a concession that the war in Ukraine is how war looks now.  I would say that this is how war looks in the transition.  Transition to what is the big question.  This is where the skepticism on tanks, breaching, offensive doctrine all comes from.  A perspective that the ground is shifting under our feet and it isn't clear where it will settle or even when.  Technology is moving faster every day.  What we see as radical change at the moment is likely to look silly in a few years.  Thinking we have the answers now and solutions (just make more) is assuming we have learned enough lessons.  I think we have only begun to learn and it is like being told, hey bone up on Japanese cause we are sending you to translate for the President on his visit to the Tokyo summit next week.  We know some fundamental things so the president bows and says thank you to everything.  No idea what the other guys is saying but he looks confused, please let this be over soon and don't throw up when eating the Sushi.

I think its important to remember that NATO would fight this war very different from how Ukraine have had to fight it. There would likely be far more opportunities for manoeuvre warfare given that the Russian frontline would likely be in utter chaos from the sheer amount of precision munitions being thrown at it. 

Would agree though that we are in a transition phase. I dont see countries going back to tank numbers anything close to the cold war where Belgium was rocking as many tanks as France, Germany and the UK operate now. I certainly could imagine tank formations becoming increased specialised as a support element as a consequence if it pans out that manoeuvre warfare as we know it is dead. 

New protective measures will be one of the ultimate deciders to that effect alongside reworks to finally design away from cold war requirements. If the various measures in the works have good effectiveness then tanks might stick around longer as they evolve and adjust into their new role. Things get increasingly up in the air once UGVs mature to the point they are mounting large calibre guns on them however, though at that point warfare could be so radically different that who knows what we cook up next. Tanks alongside manned platforms still might have function as command nodes to an increasing automated battlefield though. Things get wacky for sure.

Would a UGV count as a tank if its as big as one with the amour and firepower to match?

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

It also has to do with existing production capacity, institutional bias, and no shortage of desperation.  The fact is that Ukraine and Russia are set up to work with tanks, therefore it is logical that they continue to work with tanks.

Let's put this another way.  Ukraine knows that the tanks it produces and refurbishes are vastly inferior to Western ones.  But they continue to invest in them anyway.  Logically, they would stop spending money on Soviet legacy systems and instead spend that money on fewer Western MBTs.  But they aren't doing that for reasons other than the T type tanks being good investments.

All of that said, I believe the primary reason is that there is not clear cut successor to the tank TODAY.  The ingredients are there, but in some cases the products are not.  Since full replacements for heavy armor (not just MBTs) are not yet available, it makes perfect sense for them to continue spending resources on what is readily available instead of diverting into an R&D hole.  Ukraine does not have the luxury to plan 30 years out.

Certainly factors to consider indeed. Fully agreed on the successor bit as well. I am curious what Ukraine will do post-war given their interesting defence industry situation. Will they continue to make their unique platforms that blend Western and Eastern designs ideas such as BTR-4? Or will they full go over to buying and producing western models? They did feature what I would say are pretty excellent models of high end T series tanks (T-84 specifically) so I am curious what might be the end point for their defence industry. 
 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

I've been studying warfare for 30+ years.  I have learned that the last person you want to ask about the relevance of a particular weapon is the soldiers on the ground.  They lack the broader perspective necessary to have a consistently valid opinion to express.  Plus, these interviews are selective.  I'd be curious to know what the average grunt in the trench would say if they were given a choice between an IFV or a tank in support.  I'm curious only because I'd like to hear "IFV" in their own words

The example I always go to in this circumstance is a book of WW2 veteran's thoughts on various topics.  There was a section about weapons and in particular the US 60mm mortar.  Some of the soldiers said it was the worst, most useless thing ever invented.  Others held the exact opposite view.  Is it useless or useful?  Well, here we are 80 years on and the US still uses a 60mm mortar and until recently it was nearly identical to the WW2 type.

Oh its something to bear in mind with for sure. The typical example that I always recall were the modifications made to Sherman in the ETO to up armour them with sandbags and other bits and pieces, which turned out were found to make no real difference statistically but it was allowed due to the morale effect that had on the crews that felt better at having some sandbags on the front. Soldiers can absolutely get it wrong. (Though Third Army did make some actually effective makeshift armour to their Shermans via the welding of plating from destroyed German tanks to their hull fronts)

Not only will soldiers get things wrong sometimes, but they will break all sorts of equipment in crazy ways as well. Cue the famous French finger trap:



Still, Ukrainians do readily complain about issues in their regarding command, manpower and other such things in telegram vents, I am not sure I have found anything that exhibited specific frustration with tanks or vehicles in particular outside of it being difficult to attack or move around in general. (The closest thing I can think off is some upset soldiers talking about 2023 with regards to their shiny new NATO kit which included tanks not being as decisive as hoped) For the AFU it seems like the overall view is they cannot get enough of said platforms for mobility (rotations) and firepower given they are typically outmatched in such values by the Russians. I could have missed something though so do feel free to point me in the right direction. 

The ultimate solution is for a gratuitous amount of data gathering and analysis post war to figure out just what is the 'value' of a tank in combat and if the cost is justified for what you get. Such data methods from WW2 yielded some pretty interesting conclusions and I imagine this war will have similar conclusions to draw that might not have been considered. 

Edited 1 hour ago by ArmouredTopHat

[sburke]

3 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I think its important to remember that NATO would fight this war very different from how Ukraine have had to fight it. There would likely be far more opportunities for manoeuvre warfare given that the Russian frontline would likely be in utter chaos from the sheer amount of precision munitions being thrown at it. 

Would a UGV count as a tank if its as big as one with the amour and firepower to match?

That is an assumption.  We actually don't know how much different it would be.  Some of the NATO states aren't sourced to fight for very long.  How much the US would commit is questionable considering we still have a potential conflict with China in the wings.  yes it would be different, but how different we don't know. 

Quote

New protective measures will be one of the ultimate deciders to that effect alongside reworks to finally design away from cold war requirements. If the various measures in the works have good effectiveness then tanks might stick around longer as they evolve and adjust into their new role. Things get increasingly up in the air once UGVs mature to the point they are mounting large calibre guns on them however, though at that point warfare could be so radically different that who knows what we cook up next. Tanks alongside manned platforms still might have function as command nodes to an increasing automated battlefield though. Things get wacky for sure.

The one thing that doesn't change is the logistical tail that armor requires.  As no one is maneuvering large mech formations, it hasn't been demonstrated to a high degree just how vulnerable they are (though I think the Russians have clearly been feeling that pain.)

Quote

Would a UGV count as a tank if its as big as one with the amour and firepower to match?

That is an unknown based on several questions.

How big does it need to be?  How much armor does it need if it no longer has a concern for crew survival?  How much of a logistical tail does it still require?  What is the actual function we are trying to accomplish, and do we even need a UGV to take over the DF role of a tank?  We can assume for the moment that some sort of direct fire capability is desired from the fact that they are still used.  Does it need to be 120mm?  As noted earlier, you can't suppress a UGV.  You either kill it or it keeps firing.  CM tells me my infantry hates 20mm or 30mm fire A LOT.  

Quote

(The closest thing I can think off is some upset soldiers talking about 2023 with regards to their shiny new NATO kit which included tanks not being as decisive as hoped)

hmmmm  much more capable tank, better armor, better sighting.. and yet not being a game changer....  As much as we chided Russia for pulling cold war era tanks out of mothballs..  Other than reflecting a ridiculous loss rate in and of itself maybe not as stupidly bad as we thought.

 

[kluge]

3 hours ago, Butschi said:

So that is all more guesswork on my side.

I thought that availability of frequencies might be a problem. I seem to remember that we read about that being issue already. When having thousands of (consumer grade) drones in one place, the problem - if it is one - surely is has to be amplified.

The other thing about massing, something I've been wondering about for quite some time now: Is latency an issue? From my very limited and small scale experience, latency is much worse for e.g. wifi (air is a shared medium here) than via cable. In that case you could use an antenna but latency would suffer. Oh well, I'm certain someone here knows more about that stuff.

It is indeed is more complicated to communicate with a swarm of drones due to limited frequencies. Latency can definitely be an issue when multiple transmitters are all trying to talk on the same channel at once.

However, I don't see that as a limiting factor in and of itself- I've watched drone shows with well over a thousand drones in the air flying in perfectly controlled close formations.

The difference maker is the presence of enemy EW. The emissions from a swarm would be pretty easy to spot. And worse, a single well placed jammer could disrupt the entire swarm.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Lengthy article on the tactical situation near Pokrovsk.

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/articles/2024/09/17/7475408/

Quote

The most common injury suffered by Filimonov's men is bullet wounds, i.e. an injury sustained in close firefights. This is further confirmation that the war on the Pokrovsk front is largely an infantry war. It is physically demanding and extremely exhausting.

Bunkers and connected trench lines were indeed built on the Pokrovsk front – but there’s a catch. Many of these fortifications are unsuitable for serious defence. They’re frequently located in the middle of fields, which makes them visible to the enemy and difficult for the  defence forces’ personnel, ammunition and supplies to reach.

"When [Ukrainian MP Mariana] Bezuhla posts photos of empty trenches and asks why nobody was defending them, I know exactly why. Because it’s stupid to sit in a hole in the middle of a bare field. Sooner or later an FPV drone will fly right into your face,"

"On the Pokrovsk front, trenches and dugouts had been made right in the middle of fields, making logistics impossible. They dug anti-tank ditches that led directly from enemy positions to our rear positions, and it’s impossible to monitor them. These fortifications help the enemy advance more than they help us defend.

To occupy the dugout strongpoints on the Pokrovsk front I’d need to deploy an entire platoon, which I just don’t have."

 

Edited 49 minutes ago by Vanir Ausf B

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, Lethaface said:

From my perspective, given that I think the topic is interesting, you haven't really engaged with the counter arguments as far as I have been able to discern. Granted I missed/skipped parts of the discussions.

If I may be so free, @The_Capt , Steve and others are theorizing about the future of peer2peer warfare. What if you face an opponent like Ukraine in the current war, now extrapolate that 10years ahead to a country with the resources China has. How do you wage war against such a foe?

Now he can be, from my pov, a bit dramatic about all knowledge about war and doctrine can be thrown out the window directly. But his point is, as I like to understand it, that our Armed Forces are totally not up for such an eventuality. And that sticking to 'what is known', the path of least resistance, might be a fatal flaw. That is the default behavior of large organizations / ecosystems like DoDs / MIC. I feel that he has a point there.

Tanks are still useful, in this war and probably beyond. But, is investing in the tank the way to win the next war of attrition against a (near) peer who has gone the cheap AT-UAV route? 

Your answer seems to be, yes of course quit the yapping and face my schwerpunkt!

 

I just attended a RUSI affiliate meeting yesterday and the topic was, as you might guess, the state of drone warfare. They had a SME in who I am pretty sure has been reading this thread. Regardless, as with any disruption there is a spectrum of assessment. Conservative- it is just a fad and will auto correct, through to Centrist - something is definitely happening and we need to do something to re-establish the former status quo, to Liberal - the game has fundamentally changed, there is no going back and we need to aggressively adapt forward.

I definitely fall into that last camp. Why? Well the major reasons is that the trend lines we saw before this war are matching observations we see on the battlefield in Ukraine. We saw the impact of ubiquitous ISR and unmanned systems going back 20 years. They started small but have been accelerating over time. For this war, we have watched the evolution speed up to the point we are arguably in a revolution. If someone has been watching this war closely from day one, they cannot help but see the mounting evidence that a major shift in warfare is in motion. At a minimum we are in Denial primacy, possibly Defensive. That shift alone is world changing. 

And this is not being dramatic. Why? Because we do not experience the future, we make it. So right now small powers are seeing what Ukraine did and are thinking hard about how to level playing fields. Great powers are all thinking about the next proxy war and how to exploit what they have see to their advantage. The next big war is on the board and all sides are thinking about the best way to either sustain advantage or remove it. I posted investment projections a few pages back and unmanned systems are looking at a more rapid rate of investment growth than IT. Military land vehicles are a much smaller market and projected at less than a quarter of the growth rate of unmanned military systems. 

https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/industry-reports/unmanned-aerial-vehicle-uav-market-101603

https://straitsresearch.com/report/military-land-vehicles-market#:~:text=How big is the military,at a CAGR of 3.24%.

in fact the UAV market is expected to be three times that of land vehicles.

Global Military Land Vehicle Market Restraint

High Cost of Development, Production, and Maintenance

The high cost associated with the development, production, and maintenance of military land vehicles acts as a significant restraint on market growth. The complexity of these systems necessitates extensive research and development, which can be prohibitively expensive. Integrating new technologies such as artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, and unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) requires substantial modifications and rigorous testing, further driving up costs.

Developing advanced military land vehicles demands considerable funding and resources, often making these vehicles unaffordable for many countries. The production process is also costly, as these vehicles are typically manufactured in small quantities. This limited production scale spreads the substantial development and production costs over a few units, resulting in high per-unit prices. Consequently, many countries, especially those with smaller defense budgets, find it challenging to afford these advanced vehicles.

Interestingly, IFV seems to the predominant platform moving forward. So in the global production race, land vehicles are already seeing pressures and many nations are going to vote with their wallets. What this means is that technological advances are going to continue to privilege unmanned systems. Their advantages will be prioritized because that is where the money will go.

So what? The People Have Spoken. Argue with it. Disagree with it. But the money is already being directed away. So we are likely going to need to learn how to live in a post-heavy era moving forward. Tanks and mech are likely no longer going to be able to remain the center-post on how we deliver firepower and mobility. Will they disappear entirely? Not likely, but there will be no magic sky guns or EW that sweeps enemy UAS from the sky. Even if the UA fielded such a system tomorrow, there is already too much money in motion to counter it.

Lastly, I will pass on one conclusion from that meeting - we need new doctrine, legalities, authorities and policies because the old ones do not cover where things are heading. Those are the real arguments right there. How do we wrap our heads around all this and make sound decisions on what to prioritize and what to retain? How do we ensure we have the right frameworks to apply military force in this new environment? How do we create expertise? 

This whole thing has been a long time coming. Some are going to try and deny it, but that is getting harder and harder to do. We are creating a drone hell future at the moment. I suspect that c-drone will be other drones as this whole thing turns into a forward unmanned edge of synthetic mass, precision offsets and over the horizon ranges. We need to understand how to fight that system and win. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

8 minutes ago, sburke said:

That is an assumption.  We actually don't know how much different it would be.  Some of the NATO states aren't sourced to fight for very long.  How much the US would commit is questionable considering we still have a potential conflict with China in the wings.  yes it would be different, but how different we don't know. 

A lot of what we do is make assumptions or best guesses. I'm making that based on the fact we know the Russian system is very fragile to even a limited amount of precision AFU based fires, something that NATO has in unholy amounts with regards to air delivered munitions. This is assuming if all of NATO gets involved of course, US involvement is key as the backbone for a lot of those high technology assets and the sustaining force behind it. 

In straight up capabilities I would agree with Steve and imagine Russia would get utterly mauled, there is a reason why they have been so reluctant to fight with NATO forces. Khasham was perhaps a snapshot into how that would exactly go at some level (Not well for the Russians)

 

13 minutes ago, sburke said:

hmmmm  much more capable tank, better armor, better sighting.. and yet not being a game changer....  As much as we chided Russia for pulling cold war era tanks out of mothballs..  Other than reflecting a ridiculous loss rate in and of itself maybe not as stupidly bad as we thought.

There was certainly some foolish optimism in thinking that a sprinkling of (mostly) old NATO hardware would magically shift the tide against a opponent that otherwise has some significant capability advantages. Yet the AFU who operate the hardware do note that the quality difference does help them, so at the very least its a more efficient use of manpower, coupled with the fact that the crews have a far greater chance of surviving wrecked vehicles to live and fight another day in the process.