Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
Ukraine was an Eastern Christian country (theologists, help me out here 🙂 ) as is Russia
Orthodox?
Mainly Russian Orthodox as above /\/\
Just looks like an easy propaganda hit to me, doubt they’d ever adhere to their own ceasefire, just keep shooting and say Ukraine did it.
Like when (allegedly) the nuclear power plant inspectors quizzed the Russians as to how Ukrainian shelling arrived from Russian held territory to be told the shells changed direction mid flight. (2 caveats, this is what someone on Twitter translated, and yes, guided munitions although I don’t think Excalibur can do a 180)
The Bradley’s have already been spotted in Poland on trains, so have likely already arrived in Ukraine 👍
Bradley’s gun will destroy a T72 at a range greater than the T72 main cannon.
What?
It's 25mm chain gun.
Bradley’s gun will destroy a T72 at a range greater than the T72 main cannon.
What?
It’s 25mm chain gun.
And 2 x TOW anti-tank missiles.
And 2 x TOW anti-tank missiles.
That's not it's "gun".
Here's a Twitter thread on the vehicles that Ukraine will receive. My guess is that Ukraine will have superior strategy and tactics to the Russians and these will be put to very good use.
https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1611167268431433728
According to General Mark Hertling, who was a Bradley Commander during Desert storm, the 25mm Cannon on the Bradley destroyed all the T72 they came across is Iraq. He states it is the perfect vehicle for UAF.
I imagine the armour piercing rounds it uses has a big impact? You see plenty of footage of the BMP3 cannon doing similar in Ukraine.
From my limited understanding of RF tanks, their fatal flaw is the auto-loader carousel for the main gun, sitting unprotected just under the turret with all the ammunition. As soon as the tank gets penetrated there is a risk of explosion and turret throwing. Russian ammo is also far less stable than NATO. The US spent billions developing munitions that only explode when they are designed to, whereas RF ammo is just about cheap explosive power.
Gen Hertlings comments on twitter...
https://mobile.twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1610818228556804096
Good news for the ground people but has there been any advance on countering the missiles?
Germany sending a second patriot battery. Might be handy if things start falling apart in Moscow and someone decides to go nuclear.
Good news for the ground people but has there been any advance on countering the missiles?
There is some suggestion that missiles are in very short supply and replaced with drones; media sometimes ascribe the term "missile" attack to drone attacks.
President Putin has sent the latest Zircon/Tsirkon hypersonic missiles with 1000km range to the area on board the frigate Admiral Gorshkov.
Hypersonic missile technology is very new and didn't have overwhelming results when Kinzhal missiles were launched from aircraft in March. 1000km is a very bold claim
The Sea Sparrow missile has been promised which is designed for close range AA and anti-missile protection for ships. The Ukrainians have adapted their Soviet BUKS ground-based launcher to suit
https://english.nv.ua/nation/us-to-send-sea-sparrow-anti-air-missiles-to-ukraine-media-reports-50295824.html
The Crotale (rattlesnake) air-defence missile has been promised as well by France
Both systems are old but effective to such an extent that China copied the Crotale (and boringly called it HQ-7)
EDIT: Ukraine has claimed 80-100% of drones destroyed more recently, unfortunately, if it's too close in, the warhead can still fall and explode on cities
Today it has been announced that UKraine has adapted the Sea Sparrow missile to be fired from their BUK system, which they had run out of missles for.
Sea Sparrow is a widely available seaborn missile designed to shoot down Anti-Shipping missiles and aircraft. These should be another good addition to the AD network. More Geppards and ammunition are also being sourced.
Today it has been announced that UKraine has adapted the Sea Sparrow missile to be fired from their BUK system
Yes, NATO has tens of thousands of old Sparrows and Sidewinders that can be easily converted to SAM use. I think this system can fire Sidewinders and AMRAAMs. No idea about Sparrows.
https://twitter.com/ukraine_map/status/1608055485634154496
Not up to speed on the last few pages of the thread so apologies if already asked.
Are there any respected commentators giving a current view on where the war is likely to be headed this year, the mainstream media seems to have gone fairly quiet or has gotten bored of covering it.
the mainstream media seems to have gone fairly quiet
I think it's been fairly static for the last few weeks so that partly explains the lack of coverage.
There is talk of the UAF having troops trained by NATO states ready for a Spring offensive.
There is some suggestion that missiles are in very short supply and replaced with drones; media sometimes ascribe the term “missile” attack to drone attacks.
yep and it seems the drones are much easier to shoot down, the Gepards are v good at this apparently
Spring offensive.
Whereas there is also talk of a Ukraine offensive starting as early as next week when the ground freezes. So who knows?
I follow @ThreshedThought on Twitter. Mike Martin makes some interesting comments and forecasts though only when there is evidence to back them up (as opposed to "I reckon").
Institute for the study of war (ISW) gives daily updates on the current situation - but again based on known facts not conjecture.
Thanks both
Over recent weeks the temps have been above zero, so boggy mud. As of tonight, there is a 10 day cold snap with -15 at night and -8/9 daytime temps. By 8 Jan the ground should be deep frozen to allow manoeuvre.
It also means RF is stuck in a quandry - poorly kitted troops in foxholes will die. Move to shelter and a fire makes you a target for an IR drone/HIMARS.
RF is stuck in a quandry – poorly kitted troops in foxholes will die. Move to shelter and a fire makes you a target
If events since this started are anything to go by, don't think the RF will be overly concerned about the troops one way or the other.
Are there any respected commentators giving a current view on where the war is likely to be headed this year,
From what I can tell, Ukraine is conducting shaping operations. Russia is making extremely costly attacks on towns that have no strategic value and Ukraine is bleeding them dry. The Russian commanders are doing this for marketing reasons - they need to report back to the Kremlin that they are making progress and the Kremlin needs to capture towns for propaganda purposes.
The Ukrainian military commanders know that capturing a few houses is meaningless, what matters is that Russian forces are being degraded by making suicidal attacks against Ukrainian defenses and that will also force them to redeploy troops from other sectors. Plus, the Russians are freezing and struggling with logistics so the longer Ukraine waits, the worse shape the Russians will be in.
The Ukrainian commanders will be watching the Russians and looking for weak points to exploit (and, with NATO satellite and electronic surveillance, they probably have a better picture of Russian deployments and readiness than the Russian commanders do). Once the Ukrainians think they are prepared, they will launch new attacks, but they obviously aren't going to broadcast where or when. Might be tomorrow, might be weeks or months away.
President Putin has sent the latest Zircon/Tsirkon hypersonic missiles with 1000km range to the area on board the frigate Admiral Gorshkov.
Today it has been announced that UKraine has adapted the Sea Sparrow missile to be fired from their BUK system
Yes, NATO has tens of thousands of old Sparrows and Sidewinders that can be easily converted to SAM use.
They don't happen to have a few shore to ship missiles which can also be added to a BUK by any chance do they?
Just need trucks to support the advance. Fuel, ammo, food. First aid. No point in rushing fwd with little to no support..
They can get any wounded back to aid stations quickly ad well.
I think this is all prep, for either a really cold snap or spring, as any wheeled vehicle will get stuck solid in the mud.
Maybe MBT have had their day, with capable single person launched missiles, himars and drones deleting the advantages
.
With all the talk of mud slowing them down, has anyone put heavy artillery on a hovercraft?
Whilst a hovercraft may have the advantage when the mud is thick (and I say may, because I’ve no idea what would happen were you to mount a HIMARS on a hovercraft and let rip, though I suspect it may not be pretty), said advantage would be negated by pesky obstructions like trees, hedges, houses, walls. Maybe the odd inconveniently located cow.
Probably best to return to the drawing board 🙃
has anyone put heavy artillery on a hovercraft?
Russian assault hovercraft. My guess is that enormous rubber tube they use to seal the underbody would be an easy target for enemy machine guns. Unless you can fix punctures under enemy gunfire, you're gonna have to hitchhike.
Maybe MBT have had their day,
If that was the case Ukraine wouldn't be pushing so hard for Leopards, MBT's are still very much relevant but the Russian experience in Ukraine has shown quite brutally how they need to be used in a coordinated fashion with other units in a combined arms operation, if they're sat out in the open by themselves facing an opponent with plentiful access to man-portable ATGM's they very quickly get NLAW'ed, but that's the commanders fault for not having screening infantry with them.
The Bradleys and other IFV's that NATO have just agreed to send are designed to fill exactly this role, the MBT's protect the IFV's and the IFVs' and the infantry they carry protect the MBT's.
If you're a standard infantry platoon hunkered down in a few buildings with just AR's and a machine gun or two to hand, there's still nothing that will ruin your day faster than a MBT being sent to dig you out, they are terrifying machines and damn near unstoppable unless you're fortunate enough to have exactly the right kit to hand.
Wow, that's a lot of Acronyms.
One of the great things with a Bradley is the ability to switch between Armour piercing and HEFrag rounds with the push of a button by the gunner. From Infantry support to tank killer in seconds.
Hopefully trained in the Bradley’s etc already.
Considering how commonly used the Bradley was in Iraq and Afghanistan and how many of the Ukrainian foreign legionaries are veterans of those conflicts I imagine there are a few units out there who won't need to much time to get back up to speed.
The latest US security aid package for Ukraine in full
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3261263/more-than-3-billion-in-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/
That’s a lot of C17 flights!!!! I’m amazed the Russians haven’t gone after supply lines.
I’m amazed the Russians haven’t gone after supply lines.
I don't think they have the means. They don't have precision guided weapons that can attack convoys within Ukraine, they can only attack static targets. They can't launch an attack on supply depots in NATO countries. They really have no choice but to just let the convoys roll.
There must be a limited number of roads/railways being used by the UAF for rsupply from the Polish Airbase at Rzeszow (??) I do wonder if the reason the protest so much is because they know that hitting them would lead to escalation by NATO.
There must be a limited number of roads/railways being used by the UAF for rsupply from the Polish Airbase at Rzeszow (??) I do wonder if the reason the protest so much is because they know that hitting them would lead to escalation by NATO.
Bombing a road doesn't do much good. A bulldozer will fill in the hole in a few minutes. You have to bomb the road at the exact moment a convoy is on it if you want to stop the convoy getting through. Russia can't do that. Railway lines can be repaired in a few hours.
Bridges are an obvious weak point, but they are made of concrete and you need very precise targeting to cause structural damage. If Russia was able to take out Ukrainian bridges, they would have already done that. The reason they're targeting large civilian infrastructure is because they don't have the precision weapons needed to take out things like bridges.
Bombing targets in Poland would escalate the war and lead to a rapid Russian defeat. Putin isn't stupid enough to do that. If Putin wanted a fight with NATO, he would have started it long ago.
After the cold war the military realised we had overestimated many Soviet capabilities. It seems we have repeated this mistake again. Their intel seems low tech and slow, plus very few capabilities live up to their claims.
After the cold war the military realised we had overestimated many Soviet capabilities. It seems we have repeated this mistake again. Their intel seems low tech and slow, plus very few capabilities live up to their claims.
The Russians are juws the practice - its the Chinese we're trying to match at the moment, though possibly they are doing the same thing with hype versus reality.
Does anyone know why Russia is choosing to attack indiscriminately with missiles instead of bombs? Surely bombing raids would be cheaper?
Guessing because their planes get shot down
Does anyone know why Russia is choosing to attack indiscriminately with missiles instead of bombs? Surely bombing raids would be cheaper?
You mean 'dumb' free fall bombs from aircraft? Because Ukrainian air defense would muller them. The Russian air force has flown very limited sorties over Ukraine and then mostly over the LNR and DNR. Even so they have suffered heavy losses. If they had to fly deep into Ukraine to drop dumb bombs over Kyiv and other cities they'd be decimated by ground based AA guns, missiles and by the Ukr air force which still operates. Drones and missiles are stand off weapons which can be fired from Russia or Russian occupied territory with no risk to expensive aircraft or pilots. They have fired stand off missiles from aircraft, but the weapons are fired when the aircraft are still safely over Russian territory.
Maybe MBT have had their day
Not in true combined arms warfare. The Russians are doing a dogshit job of this but the Ukrainians are clearly trying to expand their inventory to achieve this (that'll be the western influence).
Combined Arms ina really basic format:
- You will always need troops to take and hold ground. (Dismounted/mounted)
- Those troops need mobility and armour to support. (Wheeled Light Mobility/Light Armour/Heavy Armour - APC/IFV/AFV/MBT)
- The same troops will also need to provide a degree of protection for the armour & themselves (anti-tank teams)
- Both dismounted/mounted troops and armour need support or ground preparation (Artillery)
- All of this can also utilise close air support (Rotary/ground attack fixed wing with capable defensive aids)
- Troops will also need to provide degree of support for friendly air/defence against hostile (man portable air defence - MANPADS).
- Then you have your wider air defence network (Ground based air defence - GBAD).
- Then interlaced in all of this you have mortars/firs support groups/unmanned vehicles/ISTAR platforms, logistics support, combat engineering support and medical support.
- All of this then needs to be tied up with a coherent strategy, with empowered commanders at all levels to execute the individual mission and objectives.
All of that kit is there to support the Infantry, there is a reason one of the Infantry Battle Schools mottos is 'the last 100 yards in battle belongs to the non-commissioned'.
Without each of these they all have inherent vulnerabilities that can be exploited, they key is combined arms covers those areas and reduces the risk of the enemy being able to exploit those vulnerabilities to lever an advantage.
Edit to cover @nickc point:
As he quite rightly points out this is quite complex, requires coherent doctrine, tactics and training from the combined level all the way down to the Infantry section. It requires a mixture of command and control & mission command (empowered leaders at all levels to adapt to the ground tactical picture) and effective communications.
The Russians seem to lack all of this, using conscripts with little to know coherent tactics. My observation was never about the Russians ability, they're shit and that is laid bare for all to see.
I think upgrades in armour for the Ukrainians will have an significant impact on their ability to retake & defend ground for sure.
I think @relapsed_mandalorian you forgot to mention that all of what you describe is also incredibly complex, needs constant practice, and a high degree of professional competence, good intelligent leadership and well motivated soldiers to carry out effectively. The Russian have none of those things. I think even if the Russian forces could deploy their BTR in the way their own tactics demand, the results wouldn't be much better.
Both Poland and Finland are pushing to supply their Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine.
Guessing because their planes get shot down
More often than not by their own side! 🙃
What happens to plan. It all goes to poo when you start getting shot at.
I still maintain the thinkers in ops planning will be looking at the complexity of all the above.
Verses small mobile teams with tech.
Drones with LTD capabilities.
150mm shells with Corrected Fire linked to above.
Kamikaze Drones with laser correction.
TOW, Javelins, Nlaws, with fire and forgot walked onto a target from something you cant see, shining a laser from a mile up.
4 guys, some big guns 5km away, some tech, some new ways to blow things up.
The longbow radar was the thing, pop up assess threats, laumch some hellfires and bug out.
But manpads, cost, complexity, vulnerability lessons the advantage of the Apache platform.
MBT, yeah great when fully encapsulated into a well disciplined, well equipped force. Things move on. Tech moves on, becomes cheap as,tech you can learn in hours, not months.
Still have their place but i cant believe no ones noticed how brutally efficient a drone operator is, and if the army had Tomahawk, with laser seekers and drones with lasers you could knock out big armor from a concealed position. Get on your silent e bike and do one.
Loitering drones are great but again, they cost millions.
The operator is useful up until the point he's located. Thankfully for UKR the RU don't have drone locating radar so they can keep dropping HE on fellas in open trenches.
But as you say low tech is king, the Russians could simply dig more complex positions with overhead cover.
While they don't they'll keep getting smacked by drones. Likewise with their armour, drones are simply exploring a weakness more hightech solutions do. Top attack.
Get on your silent e bike and do one.
Not sure who you think you're talking to chap, but I'd suggest you dial it down.
Giving it big licks about defence matters online might be your thing, usually done to compensate for no actual knowledge, but it's not mine.
Errr i read that as the drone operator would get on his silent ebike and do one ?
You may be the one that needs to dial it down here bud
If that's the case then I graciously withdraw my comment and apologise.
Poor taste given the context ^^
Pah. Snowflakes!
Apology accepted.
The point i was trying to make, that all of the above, all the layers, its too static.
Takes time to organise and position.
Things move on. Theres some saying like Wartime is the fastest inventor.
I just said maybe MBTs might have had their day. Very much like the Gatling gun, Winchester 45, Spitfire, Lancaster , Tiger, F111, Lee Enfield. Cromwell . They were the best thing, in their time. Would ypu equip a 21st century army with them now , maybe not.
And how do I know if you ride an ebike exactly? Im not a mind reader....
Its another example of how things move on. Fast, cheap ish, silent. Minutes to learn, ok so you need time to charge them. But for a fast get away, cross country, through woodland. Very effective.
In the meantime, what with the latest in the e-bike wars being played out in real-time on here, the news that the UK is looking at supplying Challenger 2 MBTs to Ukraine has understandably been missed. If true that’s big news and what a lot on here have been calling for.
I can only assume that our PM is secretly a member of singletrack. Question is who?? 😃
I just said maybe MBTs might have had their day. Very much like the Gatling gun, Winchester 45, Spitfire, Lancaster , Tiger, F111, Lee Enfield. Cromwell . They were the best thing, in their time. Would ypu equip a 21st century army with them now , maybe not.
But your comparisons don't stand up to scrutiny. You've listed things which have all been replaced with very similar piece of kit that are more of their time. The support weapon, rifle, fixed wing fighter and tank have all evolved. Some of which are ridiculously advanced, some still utilise a bolt action because the simplicity is still effective.
Saying that an equipment grouping has had its day is simply a throwaway comment that lacks any substance or evidence.
Doubt it's beyond the realms of possibility to see bits of kit added to modern MBT/Armour/mobility ECM capabilities to defeat drones. The west haven't yet openly engaged with it (that's not to say DSTL/DE&S/industry aren't already all over it), but this conflict might see that change.
Add that into networked counterfire and that drone operator is going to have lots of HE coming their way in short order; similar to the Blue Rain counterfire batteries they had in Iraq to engage rocket sites. The Us had a system they operated out of FOB Price to support their SF elements.
Combined arms isn't a static concept, it works around temporary fixed locations for some kit (move as required for range/reach) and manoeuvre elements that fight for and take ground.
As for the ebikes, you're talking about sub-unit holdings of kit. Might work great for specialised units that operate in small numbers (SF/Recce) but for the conventional infantry soldier working as part of a section/platoon/company they're not much use.
The demise of the MBT has been predicted arguably back to WW 1. Tank armour got progressively better as anti tank weapons got better. The invention of HEAT rounds in WW2 made existing armour vulnerable so tanks changed - more emphasis on sloping surfaces, thicker armour, composite armour, reactive armour. Tactics evolved to make tanks harder to hit - hull down emplacements, guns that can fire accurately on the move, higher speeds on the move. Tank killing also evolved with more capable anti tank missiles and anti-tank helicopters and fixed wing aircraft added to artillery, mines and other tanks. Use of smoke to conceal and disrupt IR and visual missile locks, ECM, active protection systems swung the balance back towards the tank.
I don't see the MBT going away but the massed tank battles of WW2 are probably over (although people said that before Kuwait too). A tank is the safest crew cabin on the battlefield with the best moving gun. Look at it this way, if you need to fire a big gun lots of times to take out bunkers, machine gun posts, lesser armoured vehicles etc, do you want to be in the one with least protection or the most?
Thankfully for UKR the RU don’t have drone locating radar so they can keep dropping HE on fellas in open trenches.
Although they do have some kit (its unclear if dji have decided the bad press is sufficient to disable it across Ukraine) which can identify some drones rather well aka DJI Aeroscope. Its reported it was in use by the Russians for a period. Gives the exact location of any dji drone users within 30 miles or so.
For defences. The mythical T-14 armata is claimed to have hard kill defences which would help protect it. Although probably not against a swarm.
I suspect there will be quite a few smaller calibre (potentially laser depending on how those develop) variants of Phalanx etc which can be vehicle mounted for anti drone use.
The demise of the MBT has been predicted arguably back to WW 1
It's oft touted as impending, but usually said by those who should know better or don't know enough.
The MBT is singled out due to all the threats it faces, but never in the same sentence is the plethora of other bits of kit at risk from the same threats. If a tank has no place on the battlefield then neither do IFVs or any other troop carrying piece of equipment that has an IR signature.
If we followed the same logic then aviation is pointless due to the potential of effective air defence?
There is no doubt in my mind if/when UKR get MBT's they going to use them to devastating effect on the Russians, proving their worth once again.
Although they do have some kit (its unclear if dji have decided the bad press is sufficient to disable it across Ukraine) which can identify some drones rather well aka DJI Aeroscope. Its reported it was in use by the Russians for a period. Gives the exact location of any dji drone users within 30 miles or so.
For defences. The mythical T-14 armata is claimed to have hard kill defences which would help protect it. Although probably not against a swarm.
I suspect there will be quite a few smaller calibre (potentially laser depending on how those develop) variants of Phalanx etc which can be vehicle mounted for anti drone use.
The thing with touting COTS equipment as battle winning is it doesn't take much to exploit it apart from time, working on the assumption you have the resources of course.
You simply go buy some and give it to your defence nerds and away they go. The challenge comes with kit designed for the task specifically under high degrees of secrecy, then you're relying on espionage or malfunction to acquire details.
A waste of life.
https://twitter.com/WarMonitor3/status/1612448938853801991?t=uzS2FjBRcSE7rNIhRpXEEA&s=19
And:
Poor taste given the context ^^
More meat for the grinder. I take it they're mostly conscripts?
This is one of the many reasons why when oddballs always asked my opinion on national service I was, and will always be against it.
Pressed men are rarely effective.
I was looking at the estimated casualty lists today, that's a whole heap of misery in the wake of those numbers.
The demise of the MBT has been predicted arguably back to WW 1
Same as trenches
It's good that Ukraine are still going from strength to strength, and with more equipment arriving by the day they're able to expand their operations and effectiveness.
But, i still just see a never ending war, Putin will never back away, and Ukraine are fighting for their existence, i just see a sad conclusion to this some day, no matter how well they do, the war is still happening in their country and they are suffering, Putin just hides anything negative, and everything and everyone just appears to be expendable for them.
MBT, yeah great when fully encapsulated into a well disciplined, well equipped force
As @relapsed_mandalorian said:
You will always need troops to take and hold ground
Those troops need mobility and armour to support. (Wheeled Light Mobility/Light Armour/Heavy Armour – APC/IFV/AFV/MBT)
...etc. etc.
The demise of the MBT has been predicted arguably back to WW 1
TLDR: It's fair to say that the role of the MBT needs to be considered (and reconsidered) in the light of the most recent conflicts.
MBTs have become more capable, more difficult to produce/replace and more expensive as time has passed. Early MBTs provided mobile, protective/protected firepower. Modern MBTs add connectivity and can benefit from and add to Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR and its variants).
MBT improvements can increase autonomy, simplifying logistics support, and can be as simple as mpg increases so reducing the resources needed.
There are conflicts (and battles) where you wouldn't necessarily want MBTs, e.g. thick jungle and urban battles with confined space. This isn't an argument to get rid of MBTs provided you understand the nature of future conflicts, symmetrical warfare and maintain appropriate numbers.
Innovations in layered armour (for example) make the base vehicle more easily upgradeable. Chobham armour was developed in the 1960s in Surrey and is still used on the Challenger 2 and Abrams MBTs. Challenger 3 has a new layered armour that will last another 20+ years https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2021/05/challenger-3-upgrade/
relapsed_mandalorian has mentioned the need for soldiers on foot, armoured troop carriers and other smaller armoured vehicles and (s)he says quite rightly that these augment the MBT and vice versa
I was looking at the estimated casualty lists today, that’s a whole heap of misery in the wake of those numbers.
Got to agree.i remember when the reported RU losses first hit 10k and that seemed a lot. Now we are up to 110k and the US estimate of Ukrainian losses is the same (i think). It really is insane
If we followed the same logic then aviation is pointless due to the potential of effective air defence?
The MBT case is similar to aviation. This conflict has opened the eyes of many to a war with very little aerial involvement, but that doesn't make aircraft redundant. It does mean consideration of a balance of numbers and types.
Russia has been forced to move its aircraft further away from Ukrainian missiles and drones because they use fixed bases. Its bombers may struggle to get a fighter escort as a result.
Develop aircraft capable of using improvised, short runway, temporary bases and you can provide lighter aircraft to support the heavier, longer-range bombers
The invention of HEAT rounds in WW2 made existing armour vulnerable so tanks changed – more emphasis on sloping surfaces, thicker armour, composite armour, reactive armour.
And, if you put an old box-spring mattress base over the top, it'll deflect the incoming HEAT rounds.
i just see a sad conclusion to this some day, no matter how well they do
Sadly I only see the eventual removal of Putin or an intervention by NATO (WW3) as the only way to save Ukraine from being slowly grinded away.
Looks like the Russians have captured Sokedad by throwing huge numbers of soldiers at it.
Looks like the Russians have captured Sokedad by throwing huge numbers of soldiers at it.
Yes, there are some gruesome photos on Twitter of fields full of Russian corpses. Apparently the Wagner guys are forcing the conscripts at gunpoint to charge at the Ukrainian defenses. The Ukrainians know that the territorial gains are meaningless, their strategy is to keep degrading the Russian army. Capturing a few houses here and there means nothing in the large scheme of things if it costs hundreds of your own troops for every enemy you kill.
Develop aircraft capable of using improvised, short runway, temporary bases and you can provide lighter aircraft to support the heavier, longer-range bombers
They have those planes. The Ukrainians who have roughly the same aircraft have been using them from improvised bases for most of the conflict.
The Russians dont seem to have effective stand off anti radar weapons which means the Ukrainians still have a lot of their heavy AA missiles still available. Something which is aided by the various Nato planes hanging just over the border helping them out with intel which likely means they can just turn on when needed as opposed to providing a constant beacon.
Hence the Russians either have to stand off and launch missiles at range or go low. The latter option has the problem that a shedton of infantry AA missiles have been sent so they have to go very very low.
Against the US I think it would be a rather different outcome. The heavy AA would likely have been knocked out quickly due to availability of stealth aircraft and also well developed anti radar weapons and tactics.
Which would just leave the man portable stuff which has a limited range. So whilst not complete air superiority it wouldnt be far off staying above their range. Wouldnt want to be a helicopter pilot though.
Range isnt the only issue with ManPortable air Defense (MANPADS) but altitude. The ubiquitous SAM7 has a ceiling of 12000ft. The big radar guided systems are all capable up to 45000ft.
If you have taken out the main AD systems, you control the medium and high levels, so you can drop smart bombs wherever you want. This is far preferable to operating at low level in the weeds, both from a safety and accuracy perspective.
Where are the estimates of UKR losses?
Russia's assumed advantage in artillery seems to have been short lived. Questions about whether it's because the barrels are worn out or lack of ammo. Could be both, of course.
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1612800207221145600