Sanctions against Russia

[willedoo]

On 10/08/2022 at 10:05 PM, Marty_d said:

I've been wondering for years why armies haven't made more use of R/C planes as weapons.  Even when I was flying R/C about 30 years ago, people were starting to put cameras in planes and fly using a screen under a hood.  Now you can do it from a mobile.  Grenade in a fast agile R/C aircraft and you can target the enemy officers from 2km away.

Major General Mick Ryan had some interesting thoughts on the subject today. It was in context of a translated Russian report by a junior officer outlining some differences between Russian and Ukrainian use of artillery.

 

The points made by Mick Ryan were that artillery has been the most lethal and effective weapon system in this war. The 'detection to destruction' time is much shorter than in previous wars due to better meshing of sensor networks with fires & commanders. The big part of that is the use of UAVs for drone corrected artillery fire. Not only are the drones finding the targets, but they are also guiding the fire upon them. They say artillery is the most effective weapon, but it's the UAVs that make it so effective.

 

Other observations were that the detection to destruction time has been three to five minutes in some case, making towed artillery vulnerable. The need is there for self propelled artillery to fire and move quickly before the enemy can can engage with counter battery fire. Basically, anything static and not highly mobile will soon be obsolete in future ground wars, mainly due to drone use. I can see the war in Ukraine being an historical turning point in the future of military planning and doctrine, with the humble drone being at the centre of it.

[willedoo]

Further to the above, Mick Ryan touched on the subject of command structure. For several years now, the Ukraine military has been trained in the NATO way of operation. A mission command approach is followed, which allows flexibility and rapid adaptation to tactical events without having to constantly to refer back to higher command levels. In other words, those on site can make decisions and quickly adapt and respond. With the artillery detection to destruction times greatly reduced due to drones and other sensors, this command structure is important for survivability on the battlefield.

 

Russia, on the other hand, is still stuck in the past with an outdated Soviet style command structure. Most actions can only be performed with approval from high up in the command structure. It's taking the Russians too long to respond to enemy actions in the field. The Ukrainians are significantly outpacing the Russians when it comes to artillery detection and counter fire. Ukrainian forces have the flexibility to make their own decisions, whereas the Russians have their hands tied by their inflexible, outdated command structure.

Edited August 12, 2022 by willedoo

[willedoo]

A recent poll in Ukraine showed 98% of Ukrainians believe they will defeat Russia.

[onetrack]

In Vietnam, you had to had have troops on the ground watching for where artillery shells fell. If the grunts in the front line called in artillery strikes to hit any enemy who were proving extremely difficult to deal with, the grid reference for the strike was given, then the "dropshorts" (artillerymen) would fire an initial salvo that was calculated to land 50M ahead of the required position that was needed to be hit. Then the grunts would report on the shell hit positions to verify accuracy.

 

Then the dropshorts would start to reduce the range until the shells landed exactly where they were required. Accuracy was still dependent on a number of factors, not the least of which was the maths calculating ability of the dropshorts. It was all calculated via longhand in those days.

Nowadays, the computers tell them everything they need to know, and GPS is a godsend. You don't even need any troops near the target to watch where the shell falls today, and drones are the way of modern military fighting techniques. Blokes in tanks are just a dead loss (pun intended) in todays wars.

 

Edited August 12, 2022 by onetrack

[willedoo]

22 hours ago, onetrack said:

Blokes in tanks are just a dead loss (pun intended) in todays wars.

It seems that way. In modern warfare, all they are is an armoured crawler with a very short range gun. With a 3klm. range, all they've been able to do is position outside villages and try to shell enemy positions within. They seem to be easy meat for drones and their associated long range artillery. In a lot of the footage you see of Russian tanks being destroyed, they are in positions of no real tactical use when they are being hit.

 

Artillery strikes aside, modern anti tank munitions of the man portable or tripod launched type arc on a howitzer-like trajectory and drop down on the lightly armoured top of the turret. Once the turret is penetrated, the design flaw of Russian tanks causes the cook-off of munitions and catastrophic internal explosion. It just seems ridiculous that a big expensive tank can be so easily taken out by a bloke with a light, portable weapon. You have to ask yourself, in these days of changing weaponry and technology, what role can a tank fill that justifies spending large sections of a defense budget on them. It appears that highly mobile artillery combined with highly mobile and adaptable infantry is making the tank obsolete.

 

I don't know why Putin just keeps sending more. All he's doing is boosting Ukraine's future scrap metal industry.

[facthunter]

Tanks for the Memories.. Helped them win the LAST war didn't it? Nev

[willedoo]

It will be interesting to see if the facts behind the explosions and fire at the Crimean Saky Air Base come to light. Russia has explained it as an explosion of ammunition. Ukraine is officially denying any involvement, and President Zelensky has roused on some army personnel for claiming it as Ukraine's work. If Ukraine was involved, it would almost have to be a result of partisan activity on Crimean soil. The nearest Ukrainian controlled land from where missiles could be launched is well over 200 klm. away. Added to that, it happened in broad daylight next to a beach crowded with tourists, and no mobile phone camera footage of any incoming missiles has surfaced.

 

The Ukrainian Weapons Tracker mob, using the satellite images, has counted five Su-30SM fighters & six Su-24M/MR strike/reconnaissance aircraft destroyed with four more possible. That equates to about half the aircraft of that Naval air regiment.

 

There has also been some explosions and damage at an air base in Belarus, most likely by Belorussian partisans.

 

Edited August 13, 2022 by willedoo

[onetrack]

The chances of the Crimean Saky airbase destruction being caused by Russian military personnel stupidity, is much higher than the chances of a planned Ukrainian hit.

[willedoo]

This is an interesting translated recent interview with Ukrainian General Dmytro Marchenko.

 

https://wartranslated.com/ukrainian-general-marchenko/

[facthunter]

He's pushing it to the Optimistic side, I feel. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

On the notion of tanks, the UK MOD recently came out and said they want to wind back or decommisson their tank units/regiments/batallions. There was a lot or criticism of this, even from within senior currently serving and ex-officers. However, I think as a result of this war, that criticism has abated somewhat and there is a realisation that the tank is now probably a weapon heading towards obsolescsnce.. at least as a tactical weapon anyway. The optics of tanks rolling through villages and towns as a show of strength will probably remain..

[willedoo]

In their day, tanks were quite an intimidating weapon used against and with infantry. These days, there wouldn't be many situations where tanks can get close enough to enemy infantry to do any damage with their short range weapons. Massed tanks against infantry are best left for old war movies. The Russians have been trying to make use of them by propping in the scrub outside towns and firing away at the enemy within those towns. It seems to be a fairly dumb or desperate use of them, for as soon as the enemy artillery drones spot them, they are scrap metal.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always seen the tank's primary role as infantry support. That just doesn't seem to fit in with what we are seeing now.

[onetrack]

Tanks were designed to terrify enemy infantry who were relatively lightly armed, allowing the infantry the tanks were supporting to rout the enemy infantry. A tank could take out a bunker or a reinforced pillbox or a heavily protected command post, holding many infantry, which rarely had anti-tank weaponry.

But when lightweight, portable anti-tank weapons were designed and manufactured, that was the start of the rot for tanks.

 

In Vietnam, the Communist RPG (rocket-propelled grenade) was deadly against armour - although it failed to knock out any of our Centurion tanks. But a well-aimed RPG could disable a tank by damaging a track, thus reducing its fighting ability.

 

Anti-tank mines and booby traps with a large quantity of explosives in them were most effective - if they could be aligned with a potential tank route - which possibility had a relatively low chance of success.

But with an increase in artillery firepower, and armour-piercing artillery rounds, and the advent of missiles launched from trucks and tracked machines - coupled with drones - the days of tanks being a fearful battlefield weapon are going the way of horse-drawn carriages for transport.

 

When the first British tanks hit the French battle fields of the Somme on 15th Sept 1916, strict censorship prevented anyone outside the battlefronts from even gaining a basic idea of what they looked like. It was only the awed and terrified German POW's who could give the eager public and journalists some idea of the terror they faced in those lousy trenches, when they saw these "mechanical monsters" coming at them, devouring everything in their path, often making the German troops flee in terror.

 

The first tanks must have seemed like something out of a science fiction film, and the journalists imaginations ran riot, describing the tanks, and drawing pictures of what they thought they looked like - often with some pretty wild disparities with the real thing.

 

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/89768230/8538972

 

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/89768222

 

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/130584447

 

Edited August 13, 2022 by onetrack

[nomadpete]

Good old media at it's best.

Never let facts get in the way of a good story.

[willedoo]

These are very low res screen grabs from a video taken just outside Mariupol in May. It shows the turret and cannon barrel of a T-72 going airborne after the ammunition cooked off. It looks like a big saucepan in the sky. It seems to be the biggest design flaw with the Russian tanks in having the ammunition located in the crew compartment. There's a lot of video around of crews abandoning the tanks very rapidly once they are damaged, so they must be well aware of their fate if they stick around.

.

[facthunter]

One consolation is it would be quick Nev

[willedoo]

The Ukrainian counter-offensive to take back the highly strategic southern city of Kherson will most likely be the next biggest action in the war. It's looking like the Ukrainian forces are holding back at present to equip and arm for the push. It would be all dependent on the delivery of Western weapons and munitions.

 

The orcs are not in a strong position there. The Ukrainian forces have effectively cut off their supply lines with strikes from the U.S. supplied long range HIMARs. As soon as the Russians try to repair the bridges, the Ukrainians blow them up again. The Russians have been using ferries, but it takes the better part of one hour to get a truck across. Ukrainian media has reported that the Russian Army command in Kherson has left and re-located on the eastern side of the river. The Russian troops in Kherson are semi cut off, and if the Ukrainians prevail it will be difficult for the Russians to retreat in force. Added to that, the HIMARs have taken out  lot of munition stores and command posts. It won't take much more for the Russian troop morale to totally collapse there.

 

Puter is dreaming if he thinks he can realise his dream of taking the coastline all the way to Moldova. In the Donbass and Crimea, he has a percentage of the population on his side, but that's where his local support ends. Cities like Kherson, Mykolaiv and Odessa might have sizeable populations of Russian speakers, but they are very much pro Ukraine. Kherson has very strong underground partisan activity. Russian appointed officials and collaborators are being targeted, and there has even been reports of young  civilian gangs attacking Russian soldiers with knives when the opportunity presents.

 

The Russians have now stopped talking about holding a referendum in Kherson on joining the Russian Federation, which was proposed for September. I think their focus now is how to hold the city, and that could soon change to how to retreat without losing an army. If they have to retreat from Kherson, the only place they can go is east toward Crimea. Taking back Kherson would be a big boost for Ukraine, and a big morale hit for the Russians in the field.

[willedoo]

After the explosions at the Saky air base in Crimea, there were reports of traffic back to Russia banking up on the Kerch bridge as hundreds of tourists packed up and left. The air base is located right beside the town, very close to the beach. There are civilian houses right on the perimeter of the base which would explain civilian casualties.

 

 

[willedoo]

This is a lengthy but interesting analysis by Lawrence Freedman, Emeritus Professor of War Studies at King's College London.

 

https://samf.substack.com/p/winning-through-attrition?sd=pf

[onetrack]

Wars are won, not only militarily, by psychologically, by wearing down the morale of the enemy. The WW1 Germans in 1918, and the Americans in 1975 with Vietnam, were both suffering extremely low morale, that stopped them from launching effective counter-attacks, when a major attack came from their enemies.

Both countries effectively lost their will to continue the Wars they started, after years and years of massive attrition, massive costs, and a continuing downward spiral of fighting morale.

[facthunter]

For armies of occupation the WAR never ends unless they exterminate everybody. Nev

[willedoo]

Photo of a Russian T-72 that's popped it's cork. That's the outside of the turret in the photo, so it's blown straight up, flipped over and has come down on the tank. They seem to all land fairly close to the tanks; it's probably only the asymmetry of the attached gun barrel that prevents a bull's eye on the tank every time.

 

[willedoo]

Before and after photos of Russian mercenary/contractors PMC Wagner's base and headquarters in Popasna. The before photo is an edited version of a group of photos they posted on social media. They didn't think to turn off the geo-location data, so Ukrainian forces were able to get the exact GPS coordinates from the photos and carry out a strike.

 

[willedoo]

This looks like a good bit of kit; the type of gear Ukraine needs. Slovakian 155mm self propelled howitzers, eight of them to be delivered. The ability to fire and relocate quickly before detection is the way to go.

 

[facthunter]

The standard of the Later recruits and mercenaries will make them sitting ducks more and more. They fight to get paid and Ukraine fights to hold "their" country from being run by someone who they don't like. It's obvious who will fight harder. It's well known Ukraine has a corruption problem but everyone does in those parts. Nev