War in Ukraine, technical and military aspects only

[RETAC21]

2 hours ago, seahawk said:

There are over 3000 tanks still reserve and production of new ones is constantly growing will probably reach 1000 and more in 2025.

Yes, but what tanks are left and in what condition?

The 1000 new production tanks includes refurbished tanks, estimates of real new tanks is around 200 per year.

The rate of loss rate per month is around 2-3 battalions (30 tanks each)

[MiGG0]

Tanks role overall are almost useless (drones can take their role currently). What is needed is just anything armored that can carry infantry.

Edited April 5 by MiGG0

[Stefan Kotsch]

1 hour ago, RETAC21 said:

The 1000 new production tanks includes refurbished tanks, estimates of real new tanks is around 200 per year.

Already 2 years ago, Russia wanted to build 1500 tanks a year. But there is only one factory that can build new tanks. This is URALVAGONZAVOD. So far, the figures from rail shipments add up to perhaps 100 - ~120 tanks a year. Of these, at least 50% are main repairs with modernization (T-72B3M).  All other plants perform only main repairs with modernization. In limited numbers. Because no plant has been equipped for mass production since many years.

If 1000 tanks is even remotely correct, that includes all tanks that are repaired because of war damage. No matter where and how this is realized and what level of repair is achieved. In the end, even TASS can't do magic.

[RETAC21]

2 hours ago, MiGG0 said:

Tanks role overall are almost useless (drones can take their role currently). What is needed is just anything armored that can carry infantry.

Maybe, maybe not, but it's the canary in the mine on how long can Russia keep on fighting.

[MiGG0]

17 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Maybe, maybe not, but it's the canary in the mine on how long can Russia keep on fighting.

Not really. ”Anything armored that can carry infantry” and drones are much more easier to produce and replace.

[Stefan Kotsch]

URALVAGONZAVOD recently said this on this topic:

The need for such a combat vehicle [MBT] will not disappear. Therefore, the tank of the future must retain its basic characteristics: it must be a maneuverable, all-terrain tracked vehicle that can be equipped with powerful cannon armament, has a rotating turret and has the strongest protection of any armored vehicle, and has the strongest protection of any armored vehicle.

https://ura.news/news/1052909173

 

[MiGG0]

Ofcourse manufacturer says that as it their direct interest/product. Soldiers and tactics says totally otherwise. Drones already can do every job MBT had and MBT have not needed in attacks long time now… Now heavy APC/IFV probably is way to go in future.

Edited April 5 by MiGG0

[Yama]

2 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

URALVAGONZAVOD recently said this on this topic:

The need for such a combat vehicle [MBT] will not disappear. Therefore, the tank of the future must retain its basic characteristics: it must be a maneuverable, all-terrain tracked vehicle that can be equipped with powerful cannon armament, has a rotating turret and has the strongest protection of any armored vehicle.

Very basic characteristics sure, but I believe the actual execution will be substantially different from Cold War legacy vehicles.

Particularly, the idea that tank's primary job is to hunt other AFV's seems dead.

 

2 hours ago, MiGG0 said:

Not really. ”Anything armored that can carry infantry” and drones are much more easier to produce and replace.

Problem with 'anything armored that carries infantry' is that without passive protection, personnel losses get unacceptably high. Simple "metal box with wheels" (or tracks) won't cut it, no matter how cheap it is. Inevitably it means that the resulting vehicle won't be quite as cheap as good ol' basic M113 or BTR.

 

Edited April 5 by Yama

[Stefan Kotsch]

26 minutes ago, Yama said:

Very basic characteristics sure, but I believe the actual execution will be substantially different from Cold War legacy vehicles.

Particularly, the idea that tank's primary job is to hunt other AFV's seems dead.

Yes, that's right, that's extremely vaguely worded. But I don't want to let the ability to duel tanks against tanks 'fall under the table'. Even if it has always been a second task.

We can be curious to see what will be put together. And in particular, how long it takes to do so. After the ARMATA fiasco.

[Roman Alymov]

3 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

We can be curious to see what will be put together. And in particular, how long it takes to do so. After the ARMATA fiasco.

I wonder what makes you think it was fiasco. May be it was coincidence, not vice decision, but the very fact production line was not switched/rebuild to produce more complex and more expencive tank with the same combat potential  (in current conditions nobody was able to predict even in 2023) as old good T-55/T-62 was lucky chance for our tank industry. Having, for example, only 100 or 200 Armatas produced a year would be disaster. Now tank industry is mass-building/refiting old models that, as i have preducted back in 2018, are able to deliver 90% of what Armata can (or even 99% if we condider tank as chassis for anti-drone "barn")

 

[MiGG0]

1 hour ago, Yama said:

Very basic characteristics sure, but I believe the actual execution will be substantially different from Cold War legacy vehicles.

Particularly, the idea that tank's primary job is to hunt other AFV's seems dead.

 

Problem with 'anything armored that carries infantry' is that without passive protection, personnel losses get unacceptably high. Simple "metal box with wheels" (or tracks) won't cut it, no matter how cheap it is. Inevitably it means that the resulting vehicle won't be quite as cheap as good ol' basic M113 or BTR.

 

Any large caliber direct fire support is mostly dead as you can use drones with thermobaric/HE warhead with better efficiensy even against fortified positions.
 

”Armored” means passive protection (you can add active protection aswell). Also as I said heavy APC/IFV will probably what is needed, but you can fill its role other means aswell (just not as good tough).
 

IE SISU XA-180/185 almost perfect old vehicle for currently needed job. Good mine protection, average for artillery sharpnells and just target for drones like everything else including MBT:s. Just add cages and it will reduce after penetration effects. Many MRAPs are same -> good (cheap) enought for the needed job. Heavy APC/IFV would be better but also more expensive.

Edited April 5 by MiGG0

[glenn239]

6 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

The rate of loss rate per month is around 2-3 battalions (30 tanks each)

Reports online suggest that as many as 70% of armored vehicles that have been knocked out are recovered and repaired.  

[glenn239]

3 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

URALVAGONZAVOD recently said this on this topic:

The need for such a combat vehicle [MBT] will not disappear. Therefore, the tank of the future must retain its basic characteristics: it must be a maneuverable, all-terrain tracked vehicle that can be equipped with powerful cannon armament, has a rotating turret and has the strongest protection of any armored vehicle, and has the strongest protection of any armored vehicle.

https://ura.news/news/1052909173

The unconfirmed report stated that 10 new mechanized divisions would be fielded.  It said nothing about vehicle types, nor about tanks specifically.  

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, Yama said:

Problem with 'anything armored that carries infantry' is that without passive protection, personnel losses get unacceptably high. 

As drone numbers increase, troop densities along the front seem to be thinning out.  Thinning lines mean that attacking forces are composed of fewer and fewer troops.  Personnel losses on both sides therefore have probably fallen on both sides.  An armor vehicle that gets across no man's land and debarks its squad is often abandoned and hit repeatedly afterwards.  Eventually recovered, often repaired.

 

 

[Markus Becker]

Quote

Plenty of old T-62s were already sent to assaults. Some various tanks even without/with immobilized turrets.

Is that correct? I don't recall such information from here but that T-55 and un-mod -62 are sued as self propelled artillery only. 

[Roman Alymov]

Back to cross-country mobility in Russian conditions: Bradley IFV abandoned on muddy field road and finished by fiberFPV drone, Sumy/Belgorod border https://t.me/milinfolive/145625

[Stefan Kotsch]

1 hour ago, Roman Alymov said:

1 hour ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

We can be curious to see what will be put together. And in particular, how long it takes to do so. After the ARMATA fiasco.

I wonder what makes you think it was fiasco

Consuming resources and finances over so many decades without achieving an end result?

Let's just take the engine. The X-type is from the 70s. It was unsuccessful at the time and it was not possible to make it ready for serieal use. The order to ChTZ for an alternative engine 'OKR CHAIKA' consumed huge government subsidies and ended in an even bigger fiasco.
 

[Stefan Kotsch]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

5 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

URALVAGONZAVOD recently said this on this topic:

The need for such a combat vehicle [MBT] will not disappear. Therefore, the tank of the future must retain its basic characteristics: it must be a maneuverable, all-terrain tracked vehicle that can be equipped with powerful cannon armament, has a rotating turret and has the strongest protection of any armored vehicle, and has the strongest protection of any armored vehicle.

https://ura.news/news/1052909173

The unconfirmed report stated that 10 new mechanized divisions would be fielded.  It said nothing about vehicle types, nor about tanks specifically.  

The structure of a (mech.?) Infantry Division is roughly known. I don't even want to try to list which tanks, BTR or IFV, how many artillery gunners, how many general vehicles have to be provided. And that 10 times. Then the staff.

Do they want to win the war now or set up divisions? It does not look as if the Russian army has stopped its offensive actions. For this purpose, it requires uninterrupted replenishment. Is Russia capable of realizing BOTH? Restructure 10 divisions and continue to fight unchanged despite huge losses?
 

[MiGG0]

10 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

The structure of a (mech.?) Infantry Division is roughly known. I don't even want to try to list which tanks, BTR or IFV, how many artillery gunners, how many general vehicles have to be provided. And that 10 times. Then the staff.

Do they want to win the war now or set up divisions? It does not look as if the Russian army has stopped its offensive actions. For this purpose, it requires uninterrupted replenishment. Is Russia capable of realizing BOTH? Restructure 10 divisions and continue to fight unchanged despite huge losses?
 

Is it or has RUS changed structure from lessons learned during war (ie MBT are mostly useless and drone teams are not even there in old structure)?

Edited April 5 by MiGG0

[Roman Alymov]

15 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Consuming resources and finances over so many decades without achieving an end result?

    I'm sorry but it is like saying development of battleships ended up in fiasco. Yes for historic reasons USSR and then, to some extent, RF were more focused on tanks than others and, as result, when progress reached the point when cheap Made-in-China-DIY drone made all tanks equal, Russian designers have allready made another step forward away from the "peloton". But it doesn't mean Russian program ended in fiasko - entire concept of heavy armor in its current form did, in all countries. If you think that student from, say, Tegeran or Cairo is less capable to assemble partd from AliExpress into working drone then student in Russia - i'm affraid you are in self-illusion....

24 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Let's just take the engine. The X-type is from the 70s. It was unsuccessful at the time and it was not possible to make it ready for serieal use. The order to ChTZ for an alternative engine 'OKR CHAIKA' consumed huge government subsidies and ended in an even bigger fiasco.

  Again, what is huge for you? Entire Russian budget is very small compared to major Western powers, so no reasons to expect tank engines program was even close in price to Western numbers. 

[Roman Alymov]

10 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

Is it or has RUS changed structure from lessons learned during war (ie MBT are mostly useless and drone teams are not even there in old structure)?

De-facto it did, for example some "artillery units" are allredy de-facto "drone units". 

[Stefan Kotsch]

11 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

Is it or has RUS changed structure from lessons learned during war (ie MBT are mostly useless and drone teams are not even there in old structure)?

Or do you try to compensate for the lack of everything with drones?

[Stefan Kotsch]

2 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

concept of heavy armor

The T-14 is an MBT. Not a Heavy Tank  Project of the 50s.

[MiGG0]

2 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Or do you try to compensate for the lack of everything with drones?

Why wouldnt you? They are much more cost effective. Everyone will eventually change just more drones.

[Roman Alymov]

7 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

The T-14 is an MBT. Not a Heavy Tank  Project of the 50s.

Have i said "Heavy Tank"? I said "heavy armor", Bradley-style IFV is also "Heavy armor".

  Another compilation of FPVs vs. armor videos (mostly in cover) https://t.me/boris_rozhin/160376