War in Ukraine

[Stirlingsays]

Because drones cannot seize terrain while you can with a tank. Neither Russia or Ukraine can mass armor at this point because both are better at offensive drone operations and both are low on anti-drone capabilities

Now does the tank need to be protected from drones? Absolutely. But if you want to take over the enemy position, then tanks can help you do it.

This is the philosophy of combined arms. Combined arms is the military approach that coordinates different branches such as infantry, armor, artillery and aviation that so each units actions protect the others and make the enemy vulnerable to your actions. The way I explain drone operations is that is a return to the 1940s, cheap airplanes/drones ensure that air dominance doesn't exist and that you now need to look up and protect deep as you did during WWII.

Tanks are a lot more expensive, harder to hide and less numerous than infantry.

Until they have effective anti drone tech that's proven, I don't think we see them used on actual battlefields.

The war currently is artillery/drones, air power and infantry, sometimes on motor bikes.

 

[silvertop]

Because drones cannot seize terrain while you can with a tank. Neither Russia or Ukraine can mass armor at this point because both are better at offensive drone operations and both are low on anti-drone capabilities

Now does the tank need to be protected from drones? Absolutely. But if you want to take over the enemy position, then tanks can help you do it.

This is the philosophy of combined arms. Combined arms is the military approach that coordinates different branches such as infantry, armor, artillery and aviation that so each units actions protect the others and make the enemy vulnerable to your actions. The way I explain drone operations is that is a return to the 1940s, cheap airplanes/drones ensure that air dominance doesn't exist and that you now need to look up and protect deep as you did during WWII.

That pretty much sums up British military tactics borne from WWI and developed in WWII.

Used to drive the Americans mad as their philosophy was more speed aggression and improvisation.

The Germans too which is why they respected US generals but thought ours were all over cautious ditherers.

Yet they hated attacking our positions. It was grinding yet effective.

 

[Ouzo Dan]

I was really just replying to Ouzo Dan's stuff. I don't think Russia would do it as I suspect they can quite easily see that they would lose.

I don't think Russia are about to invade Poland anytime soon, I'd be a lot more nervous if I was in the baltics, however theres other things they can do.
Russia seems to be getting the blame for this

SZ: Another drone containing explosives was found near the Leipzig airport

It appears that more drones than previously thought were intended to be used in the attack on the Ukrainian plane in Germany

news.liga.net

I'm not 100% convinced it's Russia given Germany has unlimited Islamic lunatics & Ukraine/US are responsible for Nordstream (it's possible it was left there by a Ukrainian operative to be found) however it's something that could happen in Poland, Russia have a bit of a history of shooting down civilian aircraft so flying a drone into an aircraft as it's taking off that has some government official on it is plausible.

A Cyber attack knocking out the Polish energy grid, assassinations etc all have enough grey area that Russia could claim it had nothing to do with it.

Poland recently revoked it's highest honour given to Ukraine after Zelensky & another of his big brain ideas named his special forces command centre after the UPA a group that in WW2 murdered a lot of Poles.

I will stress again like I did earlier in the war, you'll find enough pro soviet union hardliners in central/eastern Europe to cause problems.

 

[ASCPFC]

I don't think Russia are about to invade Poland anytime soon, I'd be a lot more nervous if I was in the baltics, however theres other things they can do.
Russia seems to be getting the blame for this

SZ: Another drone containing explosives was found near the Leipzig airport

It appears that more drones than previously thought were intended to be used in the attack on the Ukrainian plane in Germany

news.liga.net

I'm not 100% convinced it's Russia given Germany has unlimited Islamic lunatics & Ukraine/US are responsible for Nordstream (it's possible it was left there by a Ukrainian operative to be found) however it's something that could happen in Poland, Russia have a bit of a history of shooting down civilian aircraft so flying a drone into an aircraft as it's taking off that has some government official on it is plausible.

A Cyber attack knocking out the Polish energy grid, assassinations etc all have enough grey area that Russia could claim it had nothing to do with it.

Poland recently revoked it's highest honour given to Ukraine after Zelensky & another of his big brain ideas named his special forces command centre after the UPA a group that in WW2 murdered a lot of Poles.

I will stress again like I did earlier in the war, you'll find enough pro soviet union hardliners in central/eastern Europe to cause problems.

You are correct. There has been Sabre rattling about the Baltic States for decades. And I'm not entirely convinced Europe or NATO care that much. Along with the fact that they have large ethnic Russian populations and most speak Russian as well.

 

[steeleye20]

Russia’s embassy to the UK said in a statement on Monday that the reports “confirm that London is deliberately opting for an escalation of the Ukraine crisis” and accused Britain of “seeking to contain Russia and inflict maximum damage on it by proxy”.

Definitely, the UK arms Ukraine with special drones which are used to harm Russian civilians in their own country. that is 'maximum damage by proxy',

Now the new unelected PM warns us that we need to 'protect democracy' from Russia, when he should say protection of the UK from his naive dangerous incompetence.

Does he have shares in Heinz?

😎

 

[Mark B]

That pretty much sums up British military tactics borne from WWI and developed in WWII.

Used to drive the Americans mad as their philosophy was more speed aggression and improvisation.

The Germans too which is why they respected US generals but thought ours were all over cautious ditherers.

Yet they hated attacking our positions. It was grinding yet effective.

American frustration with British Army tactics during WWII was because the British Army was very slow and deliberate. What is interesting to me is that it wasn't a universal tactic as Slim did great work but he was farther from the flag pole. My belief from research is that it was a deliberate decision to slow things down in an attempt to minimize human loss of life that you just couldn't replace. The destruction of you male population during WWI was not something that you could sustain again so a more methodical process was utilized by people like Montgomery. Montgomery would build a massive force and then attack, which minimized casualties while ensuring battlefield success through mass. Slim had the advantage of getting Indians killed and no one really cared about them getting killed so he was allowed to accept more risk.

Both nations heavily utilized combined arms, the US Army made it their official doctrine in 1927. The US advantage was simply more people, artillery, tanks and tactical aircraft so there was just more of them around.

The most underappreciated aspect of both world wars is that the Allies were able to function better together as multiple nations then either Germany or Japan could do internally between their services. Alliances are incredibly had to make work but making it work

Germany respected British generals more then American ones as they believed that the Americans were amateurish initially and over dependent on material mass. The German-British connection of being European professional gentlemen also played a role as well. The big problem with researching perspectives is the ball washing that goes on afterwards of Germans trying to sweettalk Allies which throws it off a lot and has heavily influenced common discussion on on perspectives.

 

[Mark B]

Tanks are a lot more expensive, harder to hide and less numerous than infantry.

Until they have effective anti drone tech that's proven, I don't think we see them used on actual battlefields.

The war currently is artillery/drones, air power and infantry, sometimes on motor bikes.

Russa and Ukraine treat their armor like it is 1940 France, they throw a couple random tanks here and there with no actual capability to exploit their successes on the battlefield.

Battalion is pretty much the smallest unit that can actually exploit and even then, you aren't doing much with it. Brigades and divisions are drastically better at it but it takes certain capabilities and training to make it work. That is why 3UK last year was designated to be going back being an actual armored division against and pulling out the extra ash and trash they had been assigned.

I expect that anti-drone capabilities will continue to be like counter-IED was for the last two decades. You have about a month of success with the new device or TTP and then the enemy adapts and you compete to see who can out cycle the other one. Evidence in Ukraine over the last few years has validated that the 30 day cycle is fairly consistent. This is a long way of saying that armies need to become comfortable with drone losses because you won't be able to escape some enemy success with their drones, but you will be able to mitigate their effectiveness.

You are correct, but the why is important. Both sides are close to their capacity limit for items like tanks and APCs and they just don't have enough to make a difference. When each gets a new shipment of a company of tanks in their do an attack, get their vehicles blown up and then wait for the arrival of the next company.