Ukraine Conflict: Crimea-a-River

[Kalbear]

51 minutes ago, Bironic said:

I don't think your assessment is entirely correct. It is partially though.

One of the main reasons why tanks don't work as good is not only drones (both spotters and suicide drones) but also the amount of defensive structures that block maneuver warfare: Mines (various types, deployed by air or artillery or conventionally, stacked and layered) anti tank structures such as dragons teeth or trenches.

Second your assessment that attack helicopters aren't used is wrong: Russia used(and still uses) them to great effect against Ukraine, exactly to stop tanks/armored vehicles, because they outrange infantry portable weapons such as man-pads or machine guns (thus operate with relative impunity) and are way faster and more mobile.

They really don't. Russia largely uses helicopters in limited indirect fire methods now. They are no longer patrolling the battlefield or being used as direct fire attacks against tanks and APCs and infantry because those forces - especially the infantry - have so many portable antiair weapons. There's more details about how helicopters are being used here, but the mission has changed significantly from what they were designed for in both cases. For the Ukraine they use them differently than Russia - but not against general battlefield targets. They use them for rapid deployment and attacking high-value targets under night and ECM cover, which again - very different than what Apaches were planned for. 

I'll note that Ukraine has asked repeatedly for things like F16s, APCs, and munitions. They've not once asked for more helicopters. 

51 minutes ago, Bironic said:

The tanks/vehicles that are used in Ukraine were not designed against drone warfare neither against spotters nor suicide drones or loitering munitions etc. They are from 1945-2005. So obviously they suck against them.

The tanks that are being designed today - the Abrams and the T14, and their replacements - are equally garbage against the types of threats that are being faced. Again, the problem is not just drones!

51 minutes ago, Bironic said:

So why do you think tanks (I use this term in the broadest of senses meaning basically every self propelled ground vehicle) will not adapt?

For the same reason that we don't use cavalry charges any more. Because the need for a self-propelled source of direct fire is not nearly as important. Because man-portable weaponry is common, cheap, has long range and is effective. 

Mostly, because the reason for it - having a weapon that is very difficult to kill that can breach defenses and can also fire a large weapon that can deal with high-armored targets - is not a major mission any more. 

I guess I really don't understand the reluctance to even think that the idea that a 'tank' is not a viable weapon.  We don't think battleships are very useful any more either. Warfare changes, and the need for a specific device changes. I don't take for granted that we will always need something like a tank. 

51 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Let's say you have a fully/hybrid electric Tank/vehicle with only 0-2 crew members? It will be super silent, have no heat signature to speak of, making IR vision and homing largely useless (which most infantry manpads use). It will have no fuel that burns/explodes

Batteries are notoriously explosive and batteries run hot and need active cooling, but yes, please continue. 

(this assumes that sighting on things is going to be hard to deal with, which it isn't)

51 minutes ago, Bironic said:

, its ammo will be safely stored away and it will fire very fast, it will be comparably small and lightweight, yet still have superior armor(especially on top!) and acceleration, endurance and velocity, its motor will not be located in one specific spot so you can't target it and immobilize it (unless you blow up the tracks/wheels), it will have a number of things in its arsenal to stop drones such as jammers, anti-air guns/cannons, smoke grenades, flares etc. and it will be escorted by other vehicles whose main purpose will be to stop drones. Those vehicles will probably be based on things like the Gepard tanks but be a completely new development desgined specifically against drones.

And those will get absolutely roflstomped by indirect and direct fire missions. They might be okay against drone attacks but they'll be garbage against HIMARS and other longer-range shots, they'll still have problems with most MANPADS, and more importantly what value are they actually providing? 

This is the real crux of the issue that I don't really understand. The value of a tank is to deal with high-armor targets that cannot be killed easily while having significant survival and the ability to breach some static defenses. It's still going to be super vulnerable against mines and the like, it's not going to be some kind of stealth tank that can't be seen. It still is going to have to go on ground. It still is very vulnerable in cities. It still is a big ass object on the battlefield that can be easily seen and spotted. Its cannon is not particularly special compared to man-portable weaponry in terms of lethality. 

I'd advise against thinking about 'how can I make a tank better' and instead start thinking about what the needs are on the battlefield, and then how to solve for those first. 

51 minutes ago, Bironic said:

It's also good to keep in mind that drones especially in the case of Ukraine were/are used to compensate a lack of equipment and ammo. It started mainly as a make shift way to compensate for lack of armored vehicles, Manpads, artillery, aircraft, helicopters, long range weaponry, manpower, money, industrial capacity, satellites, etc.

Drones are absolutely not being used to compensate; they are a vital and integral part of the weaponry and systems of war. The idea that drone use isn't going to dominate the battlefields is nonsense. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Drones are absolutely not being used to compensate; they are a vital and integral part of the weaponry and systems of war. The idea that drone use isn't going to dominate the battlefields is nonsense. 

Those things are not mutually exclusive. Ukraine has used drones to compensate for lack of artillery (ammo). There are situations, when a bunch of artillery shells are better suited than a dozen drones. A task for every tool a tool for every task etc. Drones will be vital but so will be the more traditional artillery in this conflict.

[Werthead]

Late-breaking report that the Novofedorivka airfield in Crimea is burning, something really big hit it. Waiting to hear what that is.

3 hours ago, Bironic said:

Second your assessment that attack helicopters aren't used is wrong: Russia used(and still uses) them to great effect against Ukraine, exactly to stop tanks/armored vehicles, because they outrange infantry portable weapons such as man-pads or machine guns (thus operate with relative impunity) and are way faster and more mobile. Ukraine doesn't use them as much for mainly two reasons: they have no air cover whatsoever: if Ukrainian Mil Mi 24 goes close enough to kill a russian vehicle from outside of infantry/vehicle range they will be in range of long range Russian anti-air weaponry (mainly fighter jets with medium/long range air to air weapons, this is one of the reasons why ukraine desperately wants fighter jets with long range air to air capabilities) to a lesser degree long range SAM such as S-300 or S-400. Second the Ukrainian Mil Mi 24 are relatively old models that aren't even dedicated attack helicopters more attack/transport helicopter hybrids and they have neither many of them nor spare parts, so every loss is a definite one. The terrain plays also a certain role, helicopters are best used in terrain where other vehicles have a harder time to operate (Jungles, Mountains, Urban environments) none of which really apply to eastern/southern Ukraine... In Ukraine it's usually simpler to just drive around rather than go by helicopter (which in a jungle or mountainous environment would be much harder).

Helicopters are also best used in engagements where they can "pop up" behind scenery features to engage targets and then pop back down again to avoid retaliatory fire. In SE Ukraine, the terrain is not wholly suitable for that.

It is worth noting that Ukraine has been experimenting with anti-helicopter drones. They haven't had a success yet, but they had a couple of near-misses in the attack on Robotyne, with drones flying past helicopters at close range and the Russian pilots and gunners clearly panicking and beating a retreat. That was using drones in a very improvised way though, and hitting a helicopter is tough.

Edited April 23 by Werthead

[Bironic]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I'll note that Ukraine has asked repeatedly for things like F16s, APCs, and munitions. They've not once asked for more helicopters.

They have asked Ukrainian Mil Mi 24 pilots multiple times if they think if Apaches can make a difference against russian armoured vehicles. You know what the answer was? Not really because those apaches will suffer the same fate as our Mil mi 24: they will be shot down by russian jet fighters using medium to long range air to air missiles. That's one of the reasons why they want fighter jets like the F-16 to a) cover for their own helicopters and b) because all the russian helicopters (mil mi 28 and Ka 52 have longer range air to ground missiles) than manpads such as stinger or starstreak or even anti air tanks such as gepard can fire.

Russia basically "parks" them outisde of manpad/gepard range and fires from a distance onto ukrainian targets of value (such as armoured vehicles/tanks) this was one of the reasons why the ukrainian abandonded armoured assaults early on. (the others being artillery, drones, manpads and minefields/obstacles)

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The tanks that are being designed today - the Abrams and the T14, and their replacements - are equally garbage against the types of threats that are being faced. Again, the problem is not just drones!

The T 14 seems to be mostly a paper tiger and was designed prior to the russian invasion and thus the mass use of drones, while the Abrams is a design from the late 70's early 80s... I don't know which part of what features modern tanks will probably have you haven't read but afaik none of those two have them...

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Batteries are notoriously explosive and batteries run hot and need active cooling, but yes, please continue.

Have you even read what I wrote???? Natrium batteries and solid state batteries don't get nearly as hot as current batteries let alone fossil fuel burning motors. And they do not explode! But yes please continue!

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Because man-portable weaponry is common, cheap, has long range and is effective.

And how do you protect these infantry men from all the threats such as drones, artillery etc? by placing them in a vehicle that is a) much faster than a human can be b) offers much more protection than body armor can provide (not that that those two are mutually exclusive you can wear body armour inside a vehicle), have greater range and endurance, can carry heavier and more diverse weaponry (machine guns, machine cannons, cannons, mortars, shotguns, DEW, missiles, rockets, Jammers, Lasers, Radars, optical sensors, grenades, smoke grenades, flares, chaffs) and most importantly can fire all those things while on the move (again moving faster than a human)

and how do you call such a vehicle? A tank

Let's say your an infantryman on foot in ukraine and your position is spotted by a drone which will have many options: drop a grenade or suicide onto you, call in an artillery or airstrike against none of these things you have chance. You have also little chance to kill the drone before it does any of that. in a vehicle you have at least a chance to run or shoot it down...

Edited April 23 by Bironic

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, Bironic said:

They have asked Ukrainian Mil Mi 24 pilots multiple times if they think if Apaches can make a difference against russian armoured vehicles. You know what the answer was? Not really because those apaches will suffer the same fate as our Mil mi 24: they will be shot down by russian jet fighters using medium to long range air to air missiles. That's one of the reasons why they want fighter jets like the F-16 to a) cover for their own helicopters and b) because all the russian helicopters (mil mi 28 and Ka 52 have longer range air to ground missiles) than manpads such as stinger or starstreak or even anti air tanks such as gepard can fire.

So...my point was correct? Cool to know. 

8 minutes ago, Bironic said:

The T 14 seems to be mostly a paper tiger and was designed prior to the russian invasion and thus the mass use of drones, while the Abrams is a design from the late 70's early 80s... I don't know which part of what features modern tanks will probably have you haven't read but afaik none of those two have them...

Abrams have been heavily modernized recently. It doesn't really matter; they're not dying because of drone strikes, they're dying because of mass fires and accurate fires. Top armor ain't gonna protect against that. 

Again, the problem is that there exists no amount of sufficient armor to deter the weapons that are currently in use. That includes drones, indirect fires, direct fires, man-portable fire, mines, and all sorts of craziness. Heck, it's not entirely clear how well that armor can sustain something like a Bushmaster's attack. It isn't just dealing with drones (though how a tank can deal with individual fleets of drones is I guess left as an exercise to the reader). 

8 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Have you even read what I wrote???? Natrium batteries and solid state batteries don't get nearly as hot as current batteries let alone fossil fuel burning motors. And they do not explode! But yes please continue!

You didn't write anything about solid-state batteries or natrium batteries, and neither of those techs currently exist in the way we'll need to use them in vehicles like this. 

In any case it hardly matters. The problem is not that tanks can explode or that they produce heat. Fixing imaging to spot tanks is not difficult and exists as retrofits for most of the US and Europe-supplied weaponry anyway. Heat signatures are not what are being used to spot things. If you want to talk about future tech that doesn't exist you might as well talk about active camo - that would be significantly more useful. 

I confess modern designs might defeat some of the more creative cheap drone attacks like dropping a grenade or a RPG that was held by a off the shelf drone with a 3d printed harness into the open turret of a tank, but that's really not the main way drones are being used right now. 

[Bironic]

 Are you being disingenous on purpose? Read my post!!

54 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You didn't write anything about solid-state batteries or natrium batteries, and neither of those techs currently exist in the way we'll need to use them in vehicles like this.

10 hours ago, Bironic said:

 

• Autoloaders with separated ammo compartments (reducing crew from 4 to 3 and reducing turret size, while increasing firing rate)
• Remote operated turret and turret machine guns
• 360° (optical) sensors allowing to operate the tank at all times with hatch closed
• Increased capacity of software/AI that will further reduce the crew from 3 to 2
• New motor/engine: currently it's either a diesel engine or a gas turbine: in the future it will be a hybrid engine: gas turbine electric, diesel-electric, gas turbine-diesel-electric combined with a modern (solid state) natrium or lithium battery and hydrogen fuel cells. This will reduce wear and tear, repairs, fuel consumption, engine size and placement, heat and noise (thus making IR less useful)
• Probably a combination of Anti drone measures: (more flexible) machine guns, shotguns, jammers, dews, cage armour, reactive armour on top of the tank, flares, smoke grenades, more layered armour on top etc.

 

Second I am not talking about armour only!!!! I am talking about destroying drones before they can a) suicide onto you or drop a grenade b) call in an artillery or air strike and give away your exact location (no matter if you're on foot or in a vehicle)!!!

Current anti air systems (patriot s 300 etc) are designed to shoot down high value (manned) targets that are large/fast/stealthy/etc. at a long range, so it makes no sense to shoot down cheap ass slow short range drones with them. What we will see is a combination of those systems (such as the Patriot) since they arre still good in their role and newer systems that are directed against drones and other slower, smaller and cheaper unmanned air vehicles: this includes things such as anti aircraft machine guns, anti aircraft machine cannons, unguided splintering rockets, Jammers, Lasers/DEWs, shotguns, radars and optical sensors made so that they can spot smaller air vehicles more easily. All of that will be mounted on a moving/armored vehicle (aka "tank"), to provide cover for your infantry and your other ground based vehicles such as artillery etc.

54 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Heat signatures are not what are being used to spot things. If you want to talk about future tech that doesn't exist you might as well talk about active camo - that would be significantly more useful.

I am talking about tech that is already under way, already in use in both military and civilian sectors and tech that is being developed and has almost or already reached industrial serial production (such as natrium or solid state batteries). Fuel cells are used in submarines and a number of civilian vehicles of various purposes and so are batteries and hybrid engines(remember the toyota prius?). I am not talking about jewish space lasers, light sabres and photon torpedoes! even though I agree with you that those would be real game changers!

Second heat signatures are extremely important in modern warfare since they massively improve your night fight/low visibility fight capabilities and most of the short range/cheaper missiles such as Stinger or Javelin use heat to home in onto targets.

54 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So...my point was correct? Cool to know.

No it wasn't! Again read my post! You said helicopters were not used because cheap infantry with manpads can shoot them down. What I said, which is how and why they are used/not used, is that they can not be shot down by manpads because they have higher range than manpads or anti air tanks such as the gepards, but they have no way of defending themselves against long range Air to air weaponry that ukraine lacks but Russia has (in form of fighter jets etc.) and secondly that helicoptes need terrain to have an advantage which again as i said doesnt really exist in Ukraine.

 

In a more general sense what are things that are comparable to (air) drones? Birds, Bats, Insects, pterosaurs, Orell the eagle, hot air balloons, slow but very maneuverable early single piston engine airplanes (talking 1903-1950 ca., minus the expensive pilot obviously) they are cheap, small, slow, maneuverable and occur in swarms and see you from above and might dive onto you for a kill. How do we/did we kill those things? Machine guns, Machine cannons, Shotguns, unguided rockets, radars, other birds(falconry & melisandre ;)), other cheap piston engine planes.

Edited April 23 by Bironic

[Kalbear]

15 minutes ago, Bironic said:

 Are you being disingenous on purpose? Read my post!!

Second I am not talking about armour only!!!! I am talking about destroying drones before they can a) suicide onto you or drop a grenade b) call in an artillery or air strike and give away your exact location (no matter if you're on foot or in a vehicle)!!!

First off, again - drones aren't the only problem. 

Second, the systems needed to shoot down drones before they can see you or target you are not portable on a tank by itself, at least not any that we have seen so far. They are their own units and require combined arms use, which if you'll recall was one of the main points I made. 

15 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Current anti air systems (patriot s 300 etc) are designed to shoot down high value (manned) targets that are large/fast/stealthy/etc. at a long range, so it makes no sense to shoot down cheap ass slow short range drones with them. What we will see is a combination of those systems (such as the Patriot) since they arre still good in their role and newer systems that are directed against drones and other slower, smaller and cheaper unmanned air vehicles: this includes things such as anti aircraft machine guns, anti aircraft machine cannons, unguided splintering rockets, Jammers, Lasers/DEWs, shotguns, radars and optical sensors made so that they can spot smaller air vehicles more easily. All of that will be mounted on a moving/armored vehicle (aka "tank"), to provide cover for your infantry and your other ground based vehicles such as artillery etc.

And all of that STILL doesn't answer 'what is the value of an actual tank'. Sure, you can mount all of this on a tank - you can also mount it on a significantly faster, more mobile, lighter armored vehicle. Or just have it as part of the infantry kit. Or have guys in bunkers doing this from 10km away for you. 

And none of that - NONE of that - solves the problem of things like longer range ballistics that target you in minutes. 

15 minutes ago, Bironic said:

I am talking about tech that is already under way, already in use in both military and civilian sectors and tech that is being developed and has almost or already reached industrial serial production (such as natrium or solid state batteries). Fuel cells are used in submarines and a number of civilian vehicles of various purposes and so are batteries and hybrid engines(remember the toyota prius?). I am not talking about jewish space lasers, light sabres and photon torpedoes! even though I agree with you that those would be real game changers!

They're still not used at the scale or scope that you're talking about, and running a battery on a 100-ton object that has passive cooling via the ocean and is several hundred feet long is not the same as running it on a car that is being jostled repeatedly by driving. "Almost" is not the same thing as here. 

And if you're talking a Toyota Prius as the option, well, it's way too gutless as a choice in terms of power and performance. Good luck with that.

And AGAIN, all of this ignores the central premise: what is the actual battlefield value of a tank?

15 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Seconf heat signatures are extremely important in modern warfare since they massively improve your night fight/low vision range capabilities and most of the short range/cheaper missiles such as Stinger or Javelin use heat to home in onto targets.

Russia largely doesn't fight at night so that's largely irrelevant. 

15 minutes ago, Bironic said:

No it wasn't! Again read my post! You said helicopters were not used because cheap infantry with manpads can shoot them down.

Among other things, yep.

15 minutes ago, Bironic said:

What I said, which is how and why they are used/not used, is that they can not be shot down by manpads because they have higher range than manpads or anti air tanks such as the gepards, but they have no way of defending themselves against long range Air to air weaponry that ukraine lacks but Russia has (in form of fighter jets etc.) and secondly that helicoptes need terrain to have an advantage which again as i said doesnt really exist in Ukraine.

What I said was that their role as a dedicated armor killer is not as valuable any more, and that role has evolved to a 'exploit this one place in particular' or ambush tactics. My point is that there is no reason that you MUST have the role 'attack helicopter' any more than you MUST have the role 'tank'. If you are going to adapt in warfare you should adapt. You don't see horses dying in combat and think 'I should build a better horse'. 

[Bironic]

48 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

First off, again - drones aren't the only problem.

Never said that. I already mentioned that armoured assaults were/are unsuccessful because of a variety of reasons: Trenches, Minefields, Dargon teeths, manpads, spotting drones, airstrikes, suicide drones, artillery strikes guided by drones etc.

48 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Second, the systems needed to shoot down drones before they can see you or target you are not portable on a tank by itself, at least not any that we have seen so far. They are their own units and require combined arms use, which if you'll recall was one of the main points I made.

Have you actually looked at certain "tanks/armoured vehicles/ground vehicles" that are being used in Ukraine for exactly that purpose? What do you think are the gepard tanks and all the other the other vehicle mounted short range anti air weapons used for!!! to shoot down Tu 95, Tu 160 and Tu 22m? (A hint all these airplanes have weaponry way out of range of those systems)

Obviously those require combined arms use. Nobody ever advocated for using only mbt or only artillery or only drones!!!

48 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Or just have it as part of the infantry kit. Or have guys in bunkers doing this from 10km away for you.

And how can an infantry man fire them (You can't fire a machine cannon of a gepard tank while holding it, not even if you're arnold schwarzenegger) ? How can he fire those things on the move? How can he move at a speed that is fast enough that he will be out of the immediate zone of impact of the incoming air strike/artillery strike? how can he survive that strike if it hits slightly off target because you have moved away in time in a vehicle? second hint: By being in an armoured vehicle (aka tank). How can a bunker move(its a sitting duck, i grant you it offers more protection than even the best tank, but nothing that a moab can't penetrate)? how is he able to fire both in the air and towards the ground(i suppose you can build anti air and antiground bunkers next to each other)

48 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Among other things, yep.

Simply wrong. Kamov ka 52 and Mil mi 28 outrange all currently used manpads. So the only way to shoot them downvia manpad is a) the helicopter pilot makes a mistake and flies into range or b) you have somehow managed to breach the line of contact and closed in onto the helicopter. The only thing that regularly shoots down those two are medium to long range vehicle mounted anti air missiles(can be launched both from ground in form of patriots or from the air in form of amraams or sidewinders).

48 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Russia largely doesn't fight at night so that's largely irrelevant.

I hope this is a joke?! it reminds me of the asterix and the britons were genius military mastermind Julius caesar sets all battles at 5 pm when the britons are having their tea so they are easily defeated.

If your able to fight at low visibility, night, dusk, dawn, fog etc. and if your able to see your enemy and kill him because of a heat signature and he can't do that to you. That is a strategic advantage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

its also one of the reasons why western/ukraine had an advantage their IR/Night vision systems both on tanks and infantry are more numerous and better. a lot of ukrainian attacks happened at night for exactly that reason.

48 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They're still not used at the scale or scope that you're talking about, and running a battery on a 100-ton object that has passive cooling via the ocean and is several hundred feet long is not the same as running it on a car that is being jostled repeatedly by driving. "Almost" is not the same thing as here. 

And if you're talking a Toyota Prius as the option, well, it's way too gutless as a choice in terms of power and performance. Good luck with that.

Seriously? you think that german U 212 uses salt water to cool the batteries and fuel cells? And you think those make more heat than diesel engines or nuclear steam turbines(the older versions of submarine engines) so that such a desperate measure is needed? God I hope you're not an engineer.

On a second read i think you meant that saltwater cools the whole body of the submarine... which isn't really necessary since a battery isn't that hot...

Obviously i am talking about future technology(not space lasers in case you want to make that argument again). I am talking about future armoured vehicles ffs. For your info solid state batteries are scheduled to arrive serial production this year. Natrium batteries within the next six years. that will be long before the next gen of armoured vehicles is available.

The prius is an example of a hybrid engine. which is a stopgap between an engine that runs only electric which will be the long term future and a fossil fuel combustin engine that uses things such as gearboxes and loads of lubricants and rotating parts.

 

Edited April 23 by Bironic

[Kalbear]

28 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Never said that. I already mentioned that armoured assaults were/are unsuccessful because of a variety of reasons: Trenches, Minefields, Dargon teeths, manpads, spotting drones, airstrikes, suicide drones, artillery strikes guided by drones etc.

So why emphasize what you need to do to make a tank okay against certain types of drone strikes?

28 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Have you actually looked at certain "tanks/armoured vehicles/ground vehicles" that are being used in Ukraine for exactly that purpose? What do you think are the gepard tanks and all the other the other vehicle mounted short range anti air weapons used for!!! to shoot down Tu 95, Tu 160 and Tu 22m? (A hint all these airplanes have weaponry way out of range of those systems)

I have seen that - the Gepard is exactly the sort of thing that is needed more of, not less - and it is not a tank. 

28 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Obviously those require combined arms use. Nobody ever advocated for using only mbt or only artillery or only drones!!!

Then why defend specifically against drones?

28 minutes ago, Bironic said:

And how can an infantry man fire them (You can't fire a machine cannon of a gepard tank while holding it, not even if you're arnold schwarzenegger) ? How can he fire those things on the move? How can he move at a speed that is fast enough that he will be out of the immediate zone of impact of the incoming air strike/artillery strike? how can he survive that strike if it hits slightly off target because you have moved away in time in a vehicle? second hint: By being in an armoured vehicle (aka tank). How can a bunker move(its a sitting duck, i grant you it offers more protection than even the best tank, but nothing that a moab can't penetrate)? how is he able to fire both in the air and towards the ground(i suppose you can build anti air and antiground bunkers next to each other)

I like how you answered a bunch of the questions you asked. That makes it much easier. 

My point is that an infantry can fire some of these - especially drones that go after other drones - but more importantly they will either have to live with the idea that they will simply rely on not being found or being killed if they are, or they'll have to be under the umbrella of the defensive stuff. 

28 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Simply wrong. Kamov ka 52 and Mil mi 28 outrange all currently used manpads. So the only way to shoot them downvia manpad is a) the helicopter pilot makes a mistake and flies into range

Which happens all the time apparently

28 minutes ago, Bironic said:

or b) you have somehow managed to breach the line of contact and closed in onto the helicopter. The only thing that regularly shoots down those two are medium to long range vehicle mounted anti air missiles(can be launched both from ground in form of patriots or from the air in form of amraams or sidewinders).

At least in Ukraine that's simply incorrect. A lot of manpads have hit things, mostly because the Russians didn't know that there were infantry waiting for the helicopters. 

28 minutes ago, Bironic said:

I hope this is a joke?! it reminds me of the asterix and the britons were genius military mastermind Julius caesar sets all battles at 5 pm when the britons are having their tea so they are easily defeated.

No, it's not a joke; Russia has shitty night equipment and doesn't tend to fight at night. 

28 minutes ago, Bironic said:

If your able to fight at low visibility, night, dusk, dawn, fog etc. and if your able to see your enemy and kill him because of a heat signature and he can't do that to you. That is a strategic advantage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sure, but it doesn't matter because of all the other factors. 

28 minutes ago, Bironic said:

its also one of the reasons why western/ukraine had an advantage their IR/Night vision systems both on tanks and infantry are more numerous and better. a lot of ukrainian attacks happened at night for exactly that reason.

They did, but notice how they're not happening any more thanks to defensive structures and combined arms and the Russians learning how to counter them?

28 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Seriously? you think that german U 212 uses salt water to cool the batteries and fuel cells? And you think those make more heat than diesel engines or nuclear steam turbines(the older versions of submarine engines) so that such a desperate measure is needed? God I hope you're not an engineer.

No, I don't think they use salt water; submarines have passive cooling (which is what I said). They have the water around them and that makes a difference. They don't rely on it to cool actively but they absolutely do use it. Diesels use it even more than that.

Seriously, why are you so upset about this? Why the personal attacks?

28 minutes ago, Bironic said:

On a second read i think you meant that saltwater cools the whole body of the submarine... which isn't really necessary since a battery isn't that hot...

The submarine is, however, and batteries ARE very hot if you want them to stay at reasonable performance. The Nissan Leaf got away with aircooling and they have a ridiculously shitty battery life. Teslas use more cooling. 

28 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Obviously i am talking about future technology(not space lasers in case you want to make that argument again). I am talking about future armoured vehicles ffs. For your info solid state batteries are scheduled to arrive serial production this year. Natrium batteries within the next six years. that will be long before the next gen of armoured vehicles is available.

Just as a thought experiment - how far and fast do you think drones are going to advance in the next 6 years?

[Werthead]

I'm not sure a theoretical discussion about future tank anti-drone systems is worth getting quite so heated up about. For what it's worth, Bironic's assessments of the technical capabilities of the hardware involved in the conflict so far has been excellent.

Meanwhile, Ukraine has decided if they're not going to get tons of Patriot missile launchers, they're going to build their own! With blackjack and hookers! Probably.

The preplanning for the new aid bill was apparently more thorough than first supposed. The US pre-positioned substantial stocks of new equipment in Poland and Germany weeks ago for rapid delivery to the front. Reportedly some of it is already in-theatre.

Also confirmation that long-range ATACMS are part of the new supplies.

There seems to be a growing drone imbalance on the front. Russian sources have identified Ukrainian drones working by sectors for different capabilities, and Ukraine has gotten skilful at using low-cost drones for missions that artillery would have carried out even a few months ago. This has allowed Ukraine to redeploy limited artillery ammunition against higher value targets. Russian milbloggers cite Ukrainian hunter-killer drones targeting short-range artillery tube systems as a particular recent major threat, resorting in some mortar teams refusing to deploy near the front.

The imminent onset of many more drones, the eradication of Ukraine's artillery ammunition shortage and the arrival of F-16s to further reduce their air cover is not filling Russian troops on the front with confidence. There seems to be something of a race to achieve further gains in the short term.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I'm not sure a theoretical discussion about future tank anti-drone systems is worth getting quite so heated up about. For what it's worth, Bironic's assessments of the technical capabilities of the hardware involved in the conflict so far has been excellent.

I'm really curious about this, honestly - what assessments of the technical components have been so strong? I'm entirely willing to believe I've missed a lot but the notion that tanks are being used in a critical way and therefore must adapt seems to be something that most military theorists are already going away from. 

 

[Werthead]

Yartsevo Oil Terminal burning merrily away after an overnight drone strike, along with the oil depot in Talashkino. 

The US has already sent 190-mile ATACMs to Ukraine, and they have already been used.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Werthead said:

Yartsevo Oil Terminal burning merrily away after an overnight drone strike, along with the oil depot in Talashkino. 

The US has already sent 190-mile ATACMs to Ukraine, and they have already been used.

Time for the Crimean bridge to really come down?

[Maithanet]

32 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Time for the Crimean bridge to really come down?

The problem is that the experience with the Kherson Bridges demonstrated that bringing down a bridge semi-permanently is actually pretty hard.  It's easy if you can plant explosives on it, but otherwise whatever you send has the potential to just go right through and cause only modest damage.  You can attack the supports, but those are both fairly small and very solid so you need a lot of explosives to bring one down.  So you need a strike that is:

1.  Capable of covering the ~100 miles of distance to the bridge

2.  Is accurate enough to hit individual supports

3.  Carries a large enough warhead to destroy said support

4.  Can evade Russian defenses concentrated around the bridge

 

Putting all those things together is a pretty challenging task.  Back in 2022 a truck with hundreds of kilos of explosives went off on the bridge, and that knocked traffic out for a few months, but didn't do significant damage to any of the supports.  So you're talking about needing a bigger explosion than that, which limits your options pretty significantly. 

Edited April 24 by Maithanet

[Werthead]

You could collapse multiple spans of the deck, which would knock the bridge out of commission for many months rather than a few weeks to a couple of months at a time, and both the rail and road sides.

It depends how many ATACMs they have, how many they want to waste and the chances of intercept (though whether even S-400 can intercept ATACMs is a big question).

[Gorn]

There's also a question whether they want to focus their limited resources on a mostly symbolic target like the Crimean Bridge, rather than targets of far greater short-term importance, such as airports, major ammo warehouses, equipment storage depos, radars, etc.

[Maithanet]

15 minutes ago, Werthead said:

You could collapse multiple spans of the deck, which would knock the bridge out of commission for many months rather than a few weeks to a couple of months at a time, and both the rail and road sides.

It depends how many ATACMs they have, how many they want to waste and the chances of intercept (though whether even S-400 can intercept ATACMs is a big question).

Right.  My concern (and I'm by no means an expert here) is that it would take a significant expenditure of ATACMs or other highly valuable strike capabilities in order to achieve even that much.  If it were a matter of 1 ATACM = 1 month of disabling the bridge, then I expect Ukraine would happily take that exchange.  But I don't think it's that simple or easy. 

6 minutes ago, Gorn said:

There's also a question whether they want to focus their limited resources on a mostly symbolic target like the Crimean Bridge, rather than targets of far greater short-term importance, such as airports, major ammo warehouses, equipment storage depos, radars, etc.

I am sure that Ukraine has no shortage of targets that it would love to hit.  But I wouldn't underestimate the importance of the bridge as a strategic target.  Supplying Russian forces in Southern Ukraine is not easy, and severing one of the two main connections would cause a lot of problems for Russian logistics.  It would also create the possibility of logistical bottlenecks in occupied southern Ukraine, which would make for juicy targets.

[Werthead]

Christ.

McConnell saying something that makes sense.

 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I am sure that Ukraine has no shortage of targets that it would love to hit.  But I wouldn't underestimate the importance of the bridge as a strategic target.  Supplying Russian forces in Southern Ukraine is not easy, and severing one of the two main connections would cause a lot of problems for Russian logistics.  It would also create the possibility of logistical bottlenecks in occupied southern Ukraine, which would make for juicy targets.

My feeling is that we've moved on from this being a logistical issue - especially one that Ukraine can now exploit - and gone to a more urgent issue of stopping advances. 

Per reports Russia is flying flags in towns NW of Avdiivka:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/apr/24/russia-ukraine-war-live-us-biden-senate-zelenskiy-aid

[Gorn]

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I am sure that Ukraine has no shortage of targets that it would love to hit.  But I wouldn't underestimate the importance of the bridge as a strategic target.  Supplying Russian forces in Southern Ukraine is not easy, and severing one of the two main connections would cause a lot of problems for Russian logistics.  It would also create the possibility of logistical bottlenecks in occupied southern Ukraine, which would make for juicy targets.

That's like discussing a bathroom renovation while the kitchen is actively on fire. Ukraine's priority right now is stopping Russians in the East, where they are barely holding on (a line breakthrough at Ocheretyne was barely contained this weekend). Ukraine will be very lucky if it gets into a position where they can put Crimea under siege, but they are very, very far from that point right now.