(Thread IKs:
fatherboxx)
|
Kraftwerk posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8ZPbnVqHrY  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:54 |
|
|
MonkeyLibFront posted:people want one solution but it's not that simple. We came up with an all purpose bomb but apparently it's a "crime against humanity" and could "cause the end of human civilization." Probably just more liberal snowflake nonsense. Always making things more difficult than they need to be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 00:28
|
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:
I can appreciate the probe, the pic should have been mirrored before posting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 01:51
|
|
|
Kchama posted:Basically everything can be easily taken out by something efficiently and cheaply. That doesn't stop something from still being desirable to have on the battlefield. Yeah if it worked like that the invention of bullets would have made human soldiers obsolete over 100 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 18:28
|
|
|
Human soldiers are mostly obsolete, they're just cheaper than tanks 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 19:40
|
|
|
Collapsing Farts posted:We need more tanks. Yes I know that this 10 million dollar tank can be easily disabled by a 400 dollar drone. This is OK, this is fine The tank is remarkably resilient against butterfly nets and large shotguns, though, whereas the drone might not be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 04:35
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:The tank is remarkably resilient against butterfly nets and large shotguns, though, whereas the drone might not be. Time to bring back punt guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 05:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1738154058685292999?t=URbtP21ZvFxAMFfGl_4-hw&s=19 Confirmed by Fighterbomber channel in his usual fashion. Someone hosed up their flight plan. https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1738130435585028242?t=QEBAtoFpsTbjO8cxZFtXvA&s=19 WSJ confirms that Nikolai "Planktonovich" Patrushev, Kremlins leading conspiracy theorist led the efforts to combat Prigozhin mutiny (including calling Tokaev for help, which is :lmbo:) and organized the assassination. fatherboxx fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Dec 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 13:51
|
|
|
It was a kill by FrankenSAM!https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_november_2023_global_security_army_industry/us_successfully_tests_first_ukrainian_frankensam_air_defense_system.html posted:The third and most powerful FrankenSAM system represents a notable advancement, combining Patriot missile components with domestically produced radar systems. Currently in the testing phase, this system is expected to be delivered to Ukraine during the winter season, reinforcing the nation's air defense capabilities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 14:09
|
|
|
Rutte's decided to go out with a bang, and looks like Ukraine will finally get some new jets. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/netherlands-deliver-18-f-16-fighter-jets-ukraine-2023-12-22/ It's obviously not a silver bullet, but will probably make Ukraine safer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 14:44
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:Rutte's decided to go out with a bang, and looks like Ukraine will finally get some new jets. So in The Netherlands we have this thing where whenever elections have been held and results are known, the biggest party has to try to form a coalition to gain a majority in parliament. New parliament members are installed, but until such time as a coalition is formed, the old cabinet keeps governing in a caretaker role. The govermnent is there to "keep the lights on" so to speak but it does has leeway to keep things going as they were under their rule, unless the new parliament decides a certain topic is "controversial" and then the new parliament gets to vote on it. Geert Wilders immediately showed his colors and his party tried to pull such a move and declare support for Ukraine as controversial. Thankfully, it failed and this means that until a new coalition is formed, aid to Ukraine can continue as before, including sending the F16's. And some center-right folks were thinking that Wilders had suddely changed his stance on supporting Ukraine... Or his racist xenophobic views on immigration and islam. He's still the same person.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 14:55
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:The tank is remarkably resilient against butterfly nets and large shotguns, though, whereas the drone might not be. Don't tell that boss from Link to the Past. For actual content though, people really seem to be leaning into this war as the definitive context for all future use of weapons, and I don't really see how that makes sense. I realize that peer warfare is so infrequent that any new data point is incredibly important, but doesn't it seem like it is overfitting your model to warp everything around roughly 2 years under a particular set of conditions (size of the front, terrain, relative size of the armies, professional vs conscript forces)? I don't really have a horse in this race, nor any specialist knowledge, so I don't really think I have any particular insight about whether tanks are obsolete. Still, it seems weird to conclude that tanks are a dead end just because disrupting drones hasn't been successful for Ukraine. The other angle here, if course, is that there has been evidence that even though it is possible to disrupt signals with specialist vehicles, there haven't been nearly enough of those to gauge their effectiveness. If those are a hard stop on drones until they are taken out, then you basically reduce the equation to "what works to take out a moderately armored vehicle that prevents you from deploying drones?" Might be that tanks are the answer to that question
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 16:47
|
|
|
Tanks are not a dead end yet but they are very expensive compared to how vulnerable they are in a war like this, where EW and AA has not caught up with drone warfare at all. All of that would change of course, if people found an effective and practical way of dealing with drones, which they haven't, yet. But even with a solution to drones, you still have tank killers like Javelins and a multitude of other weapons systems that can destroy a tank in one hit from really long range. These weapons systems are still the no.1 tank killer in Ukraine, despite neither side having a ton of the best ones. So when the two sides are peers and neither side has air superiority, the tank sort of gets relegated to super expensive and vulnerable fire support, which still has a lot of use... but mostly excels in areas where the enemy is depleted and are assumed to not have many AV weapons left Collapsing Farts fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Dec 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 17:03
|
|
|
Collapsing Farts posted:... people found an effective and practical way of dealing with drones, which they haven't, yet. ... I don't think we can assume this. Ukraine and Russia haven't, obviously. But the US and NATO states are presumably not sending over their very most cutting edge EW tools for the same reason the US has an export model of the Abrams. At least as far as predicting what hypothetical near peer conflicts will look like in the near future, I think we still don't have enough to go on. Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Dec 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
Collapsing Farts posted:Tanks are not a dead end yet but they are very expensive compared to how vulnerable they are in a war like this, where EW and AA has not caught up with drone warfare at all. When used in isolation, yeah, but what must be done to fix this is to integrate everything together into a "supercombined arms" system where infantry, tanks, SPAAG, artillery, observation drones, loitering munitions, everything link together to recognize and neutralize all threats in the battlefield.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 17:18
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:I don't really have a horse in this race, nor any specialist knowledge, so I don't really think I have any particular insight about whether tanks are obsolete. Still, it seems weird to conclude that tanks are a dead end just because disrupting drones hasn't been successful for Ukraine. Collapsing Farts posted:Tanks are not a dead end yet but they are very expensive compared to how vulnerable they are in a war like this, where EW and AA has not caught up with drone warfare at all. 20% of Israeli tanks were destroyed and another 30% damaged during the Yom Kippur war. Almost all Iranian tanks were captured or destroyed during parts of the Iran-Iraq war. Tanks were always vulnerable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 18:10
|
|
|
Collapsing Farts posted:Tanks are not a dead end yet but they are very expensive compared to how vulnerable they are in a war like this, where EW and AA has not caught up with drone warfare at all. Neither side in Ukraine has anything like the Trophy APS system on their tanks, IFV's, or any other vehicles so the vulnerability of those vehicles is being way Waaaay WAAAAY over blown in this war vs what it would be with more modern stuff. A lot of the anti drone stuff for both sides has been mostly old stuff (Gepards from the late 60's, 57mm S-60 AAA 50's, massed .50 HMG's which technically preceedes WWII, etc) pressed back into service too which while not ineffective isn't exactly ideal or cutting edge either. Russia was already supposed to have their APS out years ago (Afganit) but its still not use yet. The US has been putting them on the newer upgraded Abrams for a while now (since 2017 or so, Bradley's will be getting Iron Fist APS this or next year I think) but those aren't going to be going into Ukraine. Everyone is slapping, or plans to soon, 20-35mm autocannons slaved to some sort've computerized aiming + short range radar system everywhere now for anti drone work. Basically there is a TON of poo poo being done to make tanks, IFV's, etc survivable against drones and ATGM's by everyone, and its been ongoing for years, but its not making the news cycle for whatever reason so "no one" knows about it. There are real world examples of modern anti ATGM systems and EW in use while supporting tanks in Israel over the last few years on their Merkava tanks (Trophy was developed by the Isrealies). There has been at least 1 documented instance, by the Israeli's, of as many as 40+ RPG's (a combo of old RPG 7's and newer Kornets) having been fired at tanks that have Trophy and they survived without being disabled. That doesn't mean they're invincible. I think Hamas has knocked out some. But they usually have to throw quite a bit of hardware at them now to do so IF they have Trophy. Not all Israel's tanks have it because its really expensive. Same for the US. There are some Hamas vids that have leaked and show it action though and it does work fairly well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 18:34
|
|
|
Sorry if this has already been posted but Estonian MoD just recently published their take on what it will require to win in Ukraine: https://kaitseministeerium.ee/sites/default/files/setting_transatlantic_defence_up_for_success_0.pdf Since it's a PDF it's pretty difficult to copy paste content but some points, nothing too groundbreaking but perhaps an interesting read regardless:
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 19:23
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:Some 75% of all tanks produced in WW2 were destroyed. This. We got too used to seeing imperalist adventures against a much weaker and technologically inferior foe, where even a few losses were unacceptable. But against a true peer, an actual equal, it all comes back to the grim wargaming logic of "did it make back it's points before it died?" As for vulnerability, every other vehicle on the battlefield has even less armor and active defenses compared to a tank, but they still get used.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 20:15
|
|
|
lovely tuna snatch posted:
Admittedly, I have not read this PDF. Equating dollar values and saying that’s an enduring level of sufficient support is among the most business brain poisoned ideas I’ve heard. 1. Dollars to dollars don’t necessarily match hardware/munitions quantity, quality etc. 2. Even if it did, and even if Russia and Ukraine had identical equipment stocks, there are manpower and industrial differences that are very important.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 20:19
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Admittedly, I have not read this PDF. Um, I don't think that is what it is saying. I think it is outlining a strategy (means, ways, and ends), and then concluding that a certain dollar amount is sufficient to implement that strategy. It is not saying "just spend X money and boom problem solved." You're constructing your own strawman to argue against.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Um, I don't think that is what it is saying. I think it is outlining a strategy (means, ways, and ends), and then concluding that a certain dollar amount is sufficient to implement that strategy. It is not saying "just spend X money and boom problem solved." You're constructing your own strawman to argue against. Yeah, the document makes the point that it would have a rather marginal impact on the overall economies of the West & then explains which supplies that amount should be spent on to help increase the likelihood of Ukraine winning the most.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 21:27
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Um, I don't think that is what it is saying. I think it is outlining a strategy (means, ways, and ends), and then concluding that a certain dollar amount is sufficient to implement that strategy. Having now read the PDF, I find the ends ways and means rather disjointed. They identify many significant challenges to overcome, and hypothetical ways to address it, but those ways and means are fairly disconnected from one another and some of the numbers assume near-total dedication of as of yet unrealized production to gifted support of Ukraine (rather than being used in support of other operations, sustainment needs, sales, etc). This is especially pronounced in the section on tube and rocket artillery. It reads like they came to some pretty challenging and perilous discovery in the research and requirements phase and then skipped to "So add money, political will, and governmental agreement, and we can win" which... sure, but those are all easier said than done. Might not be the authors' fault of being naïve; they may know well that this is extremely difficult but it's not the venue to point out the political and bureaucratic reasons why the European industrial base in particular is so lethargic. Other areas where the resource discussion is fraught is in the portion on training. It argues that a significantly more Ukrainians could be trained to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars being scaled up, based on past cost to train Ukrainians. But arguably the larger resource cost of training Ukrainian BN(+) formations isn't in dollars, it's time, training venues/resources, training manpower, etc, not just funding. Plus the challenge that Ukraine only has so many troops and personnel they can effectively recruit/conscript and spare for training. I credit them for viewing 2024 as the build year where the goal is to keep Ukraine sustainable in the hopes that the defense support and industrial support to Ukraine can catch up in order to make it possible to sustain the fight to 2025 and 2026. When looking at their recommendations, the money is the easy part. Changing how European nations do purchases and contracts is harder. Not enough to turn a pledge into a contract (already a struggle), but best to turn pledges into large, long-term and favorable contracts (much harder, even when the commercial producers are willing).
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 21:34
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Having now read the PDF, I find the ends ways and means rather disjointed. They identify many significant challenges to overcome, and hypothetical ways to address it, but those ways and means are fairly disconnected from one another and some of the numbers assume near-total dedication of as of yet unrealized production to gifted support of Ukraine (rather than being used in support of other operations, sustainment needs, sales, etc). This is especially pronounced in the section on tube and rocket artillery. It reads like they came to some pretty challenging and perilous discovery in the research and requirements phase and then skipped to "So add money, political will, and governmental agreement, and we can win" which... sure, but those are all easier said than done. Might not be the authors' fault of being naïve; they may know well that this is extremely difficult but it's not the venue to point out the political and bureaucratic reasons why the European industrial base in particular is so lethargic. I don't mean to sound condescending, but you turned a hasty bad post into a good post and thoughtful analysis. I agree there's a bit too much hand-waving at artillery production (not just shells, remember, but replacement tubes as well). That might be a problem we can throw money at to solve, but no one seems willing to try even that so far. Even the US is only targeting ~100K shells/month capacity. Granted, we have precision kits for them that make those ~3K/day arguably more effective than the 20-30K/day of "dumb" shells Russia was throwing around in mid-2022, but still. I'd feel a lot better if the US was trying to get closer to 250K/month in capacity. (Btw, some of the newer 155mm shells are impressive. They can pivot mid-air at their target to do things like point at an armored target under a bridge. Some of them have HEAT warheads for this purpose. No more hiding under hard cover without hard cover to your sides.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 21:40
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:I don't mean to sound condescending, but you turned a hasty bad post into a good post and thoughtful analysis. I agree there's a bit too much hand-waving at artillery production (not just shells, remember, but replacement tubes as well). That might be a problem we can throw money at to solve, but no one seems willing to try even that so far. Even the US is only targeting ~100K shells/month capacity. Granted, we have precision kits for them that make those ~3K/day arguably more effective than the 20-30K/day of "dumb" shells Russia was throwing around in mid-2022, but still. I'd feel a lot better if the US was trying to get closer to 250K/month in capacity. The beauty of a phone post vs a post from a keyboard. I'm still not sure whether the Estonian authors are business brained or if they are writing in a style to try to be attractive to the business-brained. E: In air defense shell game news, Japan agrees to sell Patriot missiles back to the U.S. so that the U.S. can maintain its own stocks while also sending U.S. munitions to Ukraine. Strictly speaking, Japan is not stating that this is to help arm Ukraine, but reading between lines and all. It does have separate implications for Japan and export agreements, but those are beyond this thread topic. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-67798740 mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Dec 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 21:41
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:When used in isolation, yeah, but what must be done to fix this is to integrate everything together into a "supercombined arms" system where infantry, tanks, SPAAG, artillery, observation drones, loitering munitions, everything link together to recognize and neutralize all threats in the battlefield.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 22:00
|
|
|
I think it's reasonable to think that we're in a period of technologically-driven doctrinal realignment that changes the value proposition of your average tank, but I think it's premature in the utmost to think their age is over. Even if they are temporary or permanently rendered more vulnerable compared to previous eras, and which may mean it makes sense to build 80 tanks instead of 100 and spend the rest on other poo poo, they will still have a major role to play for the foreseeable, their ability to bring serious firepower to bear from a mobile, well-armored platform hasn't fundamentally changed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 22:08
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:Yeah. Network warfare will have to become something more like "swarm" warfare, where autonomous weapons cooperate automatically to protect forces and attack the enemy. Obviously the idea of autonomous weapons is disgusting, and one can only hope that after one or two conflicts it will go the way of poison gas. The battlefield of the near future will be as incomprehensible and disturbing to us as the battlefields of WWI were to the people of the early 20th century. They'll be caustic places where no sane person would wish their child to go. Stanisław Lem predicted that miniaturization of autonomous weapon systems would lead to a future where it will be impossible to distinguish between a natural catastrophe and enemy action.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 22:27
|
|
|
Zopotantor posted:Stanisław Lem predicted that miniaturization of autonomous weapon systems would lead to a future where it will be impossible to distinguish between a natural catastrophe and enemy action. Oh, yeah. We had The Invincible in our library, and reading it as a child was both awesome and terrifying. Sadly, we'll be stuck down here without a spaceship to escape in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 22:49
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:I think it's reasonable to think that we're in a period of technologically-driven doctrinal realignment that changes the value proposition of your average tank, but I think it's premature in the utmost to think their age is over. Even if they are temporary or permanently rendered more vulnerable compared to previous eras, and which may mean it makes sense to build 80 tanks instead of 100 and spend the rest on other poo poo, they will still have a major role to play for the foreseeable, their ability to bring serious firepower to bear from a mobile, well-armored platform hasn't fundamentally changed. I really do need to do an effort-post on this topic someday. In general I think you're right, but more in the realm of force design and force employment than raw numbers. I don't think we should have tank battalions, for example. Instead, I think every mech infantry battalion should have three infantry companies and one tank company. That still gives the battalion commander an armored fist if they're able to actually mass--and let me tell you, 14 tanks unfettered can gently caress some poo poo up--but I suspect tanks will fight in pairs and fours far more often than full companies now. Even light infantry units are far more dispersed in Ukraine 2023 than they were even in Iraq 1990. Prior to WW2 it was common for regiments to be homogenous (infantry, armor, artillery, etc.). By the end of the war, just about everyone was combining arms at the regimental level. We do so today mostly at the battalion level: the Russians with BTGs; the US with Task Forces. I think we should just go ahead and organize along those lines normally. Yes, every now and then you might get a Gulf War I with entire tank battalions on-line advancing across the desert. But probably not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 23:18
|
|
|
The US already effectively did away with a tank battalion in the sense of a battalion of tanks. Combined arms battalions are the maneuver units of armored brigade combat teams. I'm not sure just how many years back you'd have to go to find a "pure" tank battalion in US army formations. The Marines nominally used to have tank battalions, but generally deployed them as companies, not as a whole battalion, short of the Gulf War. E: And sometimes foreign tank battalions are essentially two companies of tanks, each of which is 10 tanks (vs 14 in a U.S. company). So the whole Battalion might be ~20-22 tanks, which is less tanks than most U.S. combined arms battalion have on hand. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Dec 23, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2023 00:10
|
|
|
It's worth it to put yourself in an infantryman's position. If you're in a rural area like me, look around you in about a 100m direction. Anywhere, there could be a machine gun or other weapon that can strike you with one burst. If you're in an urban area, the same could be said for any window or corner. Now think of the reassurance you would get by having a mobile, heavy vehicle that can accurately engage enemy positions at up to several kilometers with its modern thermal optics. Then ask yourself if armored vehicles are necessary on the battlefield. Armored vehicles are vulnerable, but so are people. You can't assault a trench with a Javelin. You can't easily kill an AV if you can't get close to it or if you're suppressed. AVs protect infantry, infantry protect AVs. Without AVs, we're back in the WW1 days, and literally nobody wants that. Ukraine is engaged in one of the heaviest ground wars of the past 80 years and I don't think anyone on the ground doesn't want armor around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2023 03:37
|
|
|
Ukraine is claiming to have shot down three Su-34s. Which seems like a big deal?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2023 11:18
|
|
|
SixFigureSandwich posted:Ukraine is claiming to have shot down three Su-34s. Which seems like a big deal? Yes, it was discussed a bit further up the thread. e: Reporting from Ukraine did a video on it, explaining how they set the ambush: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYFvf1Q3JUc spankmeister fucked around with this message at 12:00 on Dec 23, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2023 11:29
|
|
|
https://x.com/Stanovaya/status/1738604450980278738?s=20 Stanovaya has a reputation as a top tier Russia watcher, and the R.politik bulletin is free to download this week. quote:For Putin, the prerequisite for any direct talks with Ukraine is the political departure of Zelensky, who must be replaced (in Putin's narrative, by the West) with someone more amenable and open to Russian terms. On 12 December, Russia's SVR foreign intelligence service issued an unusual statement, claiming that Western capitals are increasingly discussing the need to replace Zelensky. According to the SVR, potential replacements under consideration include: Commander-in-Chief Valeriy Zaluzhnyy, former presidential aide Oleksiy Arestovich (who boasts a large social media presence), Kyiv Mayor Vitaliy Klitschko, and Chief of Staff Andriy Yermak.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2023 23:38
|
|
|
The only answer to this is to respond back asking for the political departure of Putin and providing a list of amenable replacements.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 01:09
|
|
|
I gotta say Putin's "I don't talk to the help" attitude toward the leader of the country he's trying to conquer has been my favorite weird quirk of this war since the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 01:35
|
|
|
I’ve been thinking about something in the context of “ceasefire” suggestion. There isn’t any credible talk possible until after the US presidential elections. For all the rhetoric around the failure of the recent bill to pass, it is extremely unlikely that US military aid actually stops. It’s like the debt ceiling, a game played by the GOP to extract anything they can, but one they eventually blink on. The only way it actually stops is a Trump win. Everything before that is meant to confuse and obfuscate. Europe has about a year to prep and ramp up to make up for a bad potential outcome, if the election go the wrong way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 16:14
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:I’ve been thinking about something in the context of “ceasefire” suggestion. Do you think that the Republicans will cave and pass a bill without Democratic concessions on the border? Also, let me just point out the GOP's incessant "compromise" bullshit. They do it with the debt ceiling, they are doing it with Ukraine. Has any reporter asked them what they're giving to the Democrats specifically in order to meet the definition of "compromise"? Because the debt ceiling is not a Democratic priority like Medicaid funding or whatever and neither is Ukraine. Both sides understand the importance of both and actually agree on both. I realize that all of this is a way to extract concessions when you're out of power, but Democrats don't dick around with national priorities like this. I never see this get called out in any substantial way
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:54 |
|
|
small butter posted:Do you think that the Republicans will cave and pass a bill without Democratic concessions on the border? The GOP’s primary modus operandi is simply hostage taking now, whether the hostage is the global economy, Ukraine aid, whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 18:36
|
|
