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
Where are the estimates of UKR losses
They are difficult to find. The closest I have ever got was UK/US reports in Nov and Dec saying the combined losses of both sides was around 200,000 and at that time UKR was claiming 100k RU losses so about the same on both sides.
Horrific really:(
Putin/Wagner seem happy to get 1000s of conscripts, prisoners etc slaughtered to prosecute this mad war
but yes Ukranian lossess seem to be almost as high, hopefully with reduced artillery capabilities Russia can kill less
Does that 100k UKR number include civilians too? Obviously the Russian number won't.
I think the 100k number, if from the same source (a US General is quoted) it includes wounded.
Still horrific.
to put it in context UK deaths in WW2 was 380000 military and 67000 civilian including troops from te colonies. Thats in both the european war and the was in the far east
