War in Ukraine, technical and military aspects only

[Roman Alymov]

Close call to midair collision  between drone and Su-25

https://t.me/boris_rozhin/121485

[seahawk]

As always the brave Russian soldiers improvises and overcomes the enemy.

[MiGG0]

12 hours ago, Soldier36 said:

Footage of the installation of Tsar-barbecue protection on Russian T-80BVM tanks. These homemade designs are criticized, but tankers are not interested in the beauty of the tank, their goal, to complete a combat mission and remain alive. The T-72, T-80, T-90 tanks, including Western tanks, have a weak spot in the upper part of the engine compartment. Until simple factory protection of tanks from drones is invented, structures called king-barbecues will be increasingly installed on tanks.

 

 

I wonder are we seeing first versions of dedicated and purposebly designed ”anti drone tanks”. Consept similar that AA tanks had previously. Add all kinds of jammers, AMS (for AI drones), shortrange radar and autocannons/HMG for drones little farther. Whole purpose is to protect rest of company from drones…

[Stuart Galbraith]

Western tanks had a fairly extensive jammer fit when operating in Iraq. In that case, to deal with the command IED's. But its easy to imagine similar levels of equipment being fitted to all Tanks (maybe even some IFV's and APC's if they can find the room) to provide full force protection.  I dont think you need specialised platforms to do it, though yes, we will need specalised Anti Drone kinetic platforms of some kind to back them up.

Then you have the challenge, rather like fleets at sea, not being able to employ their jammers all the time for fear of a DF fix. Tank warfare of the future may end up looking a lot more electronic, with lessons to be learned from naval tactics.

Course, when AI starts being injected in drones, and you start taking radio command out of the loop, then its going to start getting exciting again. I think we are probably some way away from that at the moment however. Nobody as yet really seems comfortable with letting AI make their own decisions, or you may end up with the 21st century equivalent of the Soviet Mine Dog...

[RETAC21]

29 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

I wonder are we seeing first versions of dedicated and purposebly designed ”anti drone tanks”. Consept similar that AA tanks had previously. Add all kinds of jammers, AMS (for AI drones), shortrange radar and autocannons/HMG for drones little farther. Whole purpose is to protect rest of company from drones…

And becoming a prime target for direct fire weapons.

[MiGG0]

17 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

And becoming a prime target for direct fire weapons.

Only direct fire weapon it would be vulnerable would be other tank. -> Thats why you have ”other” tanks in your company.

[RETAC21]

4 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

Only direct fire weapon it would be vulnerable would be other tank. -> Thats why you have ”other” tanks in your company.

Yes, but if the first tank killed is the anti-drone tank, you are exchanging an ATGM for a whole tank company when the drone swarm hits. The solution to the drone problem needs to be more holistic, EW at all levels, plus kinetic solutions at the target, be they passive or active.

[MiGG0]

1 minute ago, RETAC21 said:

Yes, but if the first tank killed is the anti-drone tank, you are exchanging an ATGM for a whole tank company when the drone swarm hits. The solution to the drone problem needs to be more holistic, EW at all levels, plus kinetic solutions at the target, be they passive or active.

Oh, point is not to take away all ew away from other tanks. It is additional with more deficated jamming platform AND equipped with radar/autocannons for engaging drones farther (in case jamming fails)

[Ssnake]

35 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

And becoming a prime target for direct fire weapons.

Note that tank on tank duels are currently a tiny fraction of all engagements.

[RETAC21]

2 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Note that tank on tank duels are currently a tiny fraction of all engagements.

Yes, but I mean any weapon that may engage the anti-drone tank. I don't think we can take for granted that future battlefields are going to be this static, allowing an overrepresentation of artillery systems (just like WW1 and that led to incorrect doctrine such as bataille conduite)

[Ssnake]

11 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

you are exchanging an ATGM for a whole tank company when the drone swarm hits.

We do not yet have swarms of autonomous killbots. I agree that this is the trend we seem to be following, and I agree that drone defense is going to be a holistic task at least having to be distributed down to the company level, possibly the platoon level even. And that anti-drone armored vehicles may be a very expensive way of dealing with the threat.

I just reject the logic that they will be immediately be taken out by an ATGM, because it means that you need to be able to identify them at range, and have an ATGM in place. My main argument for an armored platform is protection against artillery.

[RETAC21]

5 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

We do not yet have swarms of autonomous killbots. I agree that this is the trend we seem to be following, and I agree that drone defense is going to be a holistic task at least having to be distributed down to the company level, possibly the platoon level even. And that anti-drone armored vehicles may be a very expensive way of dealing with the threat.

I just reject the logic that they will be immediately be taken out by an ATGM, because it means that you need to be able to identify them at range, and have an ATGM in place. My main argument for an armored platform is protection against artillery.

"We" don't, the PRC, on the other hand... https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3105670/china-tests-swarm-suicide-drones-launched-truck-and-helicopters

Fully agree on the armored platform, at the end of the day, only a tank can carry a gun across a field that is being hit by artillery and machineguns.

[MiGG0]

9 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

We do not yet have swarms of autonomous killbots. I agree that this is the trend we seem to be following, and I agree that drone defense is going to be a holistic task at least having to be distributed down to the company level, possibly the platoon level even. And that anti-drone armored vehicles may be a very expensive way of dealing with the threat.

I just reject the logic that they will be immediately be taken out by an ATGM, because it means that you need to be able to identify them at range, and have an ATGM in place. My main argument for an armored platform is protection against artillery.

I also posted that ”antidrone tank” woulb be equupped with AMS -> it is protected from those aswell.

 

You could use jammers/ams in other tanks aswell. It wont change the concept. Only thing is if ”antidrone tank”worth of the costs?

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

"We" don't, the PRC, on the other hand... https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3105670/china-tests-swarm-suicide-drones-launched-truck-and-helicopters

Fully agree on the armored platform, at the end of the day, only a tank can carry a gun across a field that is being hit by artillery and machineguns.

Some time ago I idly envisaged the possiblity of a 'dovecot' style cage for multiple drones, which could them be carried on a tank chassis. Its uncomfortable to see the Chinese get their first, though im gratified they seem to be making the same mistake of being fixated on wheeled chassis. Which after Ukraine, I think Bojan is fully qualified in criticising our fixation upon.

Imagine such a chassis, with each 'tank' carrying instead of a main gun, carrying 48 drones. At that point you are starting to come to the point where the gun tank is dead, at least for medium to long range engagements. Though yes, I can see the logic of having mixed formations of drones and guns, just to ensure a company formation is capable of all kinds of engagements. Perhaps its more appropriate to compare such a weapon to the antitank guided missile vehicle, though arguably such a weapon is going to make close range tank v tank engagments a distinct rarity. OTH engagments will be the norm.

Thing is, this is only going to work when you have an ability to make the drones fully automonomous, because you are going to have far to many weapons in flight for any man to control without an extreme degree of automation. And whilst we have got weapons like Brimstone now which have similar capablities to that which these would need to do (not least a datalink so they can hand off targets to each other) I dont believe anyone is anxious to try them out in close proximity of friendly troops. Which is going to be the real issue making this work.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

4 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

I also posted that ”antidrone tank” woulb be equupped with AMS -> it is protected from those aswell.

 

You could use jammers/ams in other tanks aswell. It wont change the concept. Only thing is if ”antidrone tank”worth of the costs?

Maybe if you think beyond the 'antidrone tank' to an 'anti Drone-Carrier tank' then it starts to make sense. Better by far to destroy an enemy drone storm whilst its housed in the enemy 'tank' or whatever form the combat vehicle will take, than waiting for them to launch.

There are some parallels with WW2 carrier warfare I cant help but idly think...

Such a system would also make recce vehicles all but irrelevant, except perhaps for route recce.

[Perun]

Ukraine to receive first shipment of Czech-contracted ammunition in May-June — Borrell

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/ukraine-receive-first-shipment-czech-181400174.html

[ink]

1 minute ago, Perun said:

Ukraine to receive first shipment of Czech-contracted ammunition in May-June — Borrell

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/ukraine-receive-first-shipment-czech-181400174.html

I remain unconvinced by this Czech initiative. Seems to me to be mostly to be intended to look like something is being done and the results (when they finally materialise) are likely to be underwhelming.

Part of the reason I'm so sceptical is just how much they keep going on about it. That makes it look, to me anyway, more like a media campaign than a real effort to provide arms to the Ukrainians.

[crazyinsane105]

 

[Perun]

 

NATO elint operation

Edited April 26 by Perun

[Laser Shark]

54 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said:

 

What does this even mean? Are they just pulling some mech units out of the fray, which happens to be equipped with Abrams, or are they specifically pulling back that tank model? The former is just part and parcel of war; the latter raises some questions.

[crazyinsane105]

15 minutes ago, Laser Shark said:

What does this even mean? Are they just pulling some mech units out of the fray, which happens to be equipped with Abrams, or are they specifically pulling back that tank model? The former is just part and parcel of war; the latter raises some questions.

I believe if they are pulling back all their M1s, it means they don’t want them being destroyed and would rather sacrifice their T series tanks. 
 

But…if they keep sending in Leapords, well, then this will raise questions about the M1 overall 

[Stuart Galbraith]

If they are pulling back their tanks, there are alternative explanations than they are running away. Not, admittedly, likely explanations. But if it was me , id pull my armour back, group it on good ground, and wait for the opportunity to counter attack.

After all, why piss it away, when the artillery is finally going to get the ammunition to do the job its been needing to do?

Edited April 26 by Stuart Galbraith

[mkenny]

19 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

After all, why piss it away, when the artillery is finally going to get the ammunition to do the job its been needing to do?

Ah yes the latest iteration of the high-tech war-winning unstoppable western wonder-weapons that will once more sweep all before it and  reach the Sea of Azov in 11 days.

Coming next week - Rocky XVIII!

[mandeb48]

18 minutes ago, mkenny said:

Ah yes the latest iteration of the high-tech war-winning unstoppable western wonder-weapons that will once more sweep all before it and  reach the Sea of Azov in 11 days.

in 10 days if the Russian recruits have their shovels dull...

 

 

a little more seriously, the withdrawal information is unverifiable, it comes from the Russian side, if it were true I don't think it will be officially announced, it will be like Chalenger 2, it doesn't fight for mysterious reasons....

Edited April 26 by mandeb48

[old_goat]

1 hour ago, crazyinsane105 said:

I believe if they are pulling back all their M1s, it means they don’t want them being destroyed and would rather sacrifice their T series tanks. 

I dont really know the curent weather and ground conditions over there, but what if it has something to do with the mobility of western tanks? Ukrainians already complained that Leopards are too heavy. And if Leopards are heavy, so are M1s. Only T-64s are more or less suitable for ukrainian ground conditions.