Russia Invades Ukraine. Volume 4
Discussion
GT03ROB said:
TopTrump said:
Solocle said:
Yep - a whole lot of detente between Israel and the Saudis / Gulf States in recent years. Precisely because Iran is increasingly seen as a common enemy.
If Iran formed a coalition it would be Lebanon, Syria, and parts of Iraq. Hardly a force for global domination.
It could however form a tentacle for the outliers. Like the South Africa's, Zimbabwe's etc who had no specific reason before and the initial religious aspect becomes a catalyst for something wider.If Iran formed a coalition it would be Lebanon, Syria, and parts of Iraq. Hardly a force for global domination.
Zimbabwe?!?!?
Digga said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Saweep said:
Maybe; my thinking is that a Russia too weak to resist Chinese nibbles is not what the Americans will want either.
China's just jumped over a demographic cliff edge. China relies on the world for Energy and Food and it lives by selling tat to the world.Obviously there's a balance but I'm pretty sure the West will want to keep Russia out of Europe more than we want to keep China out of Russia.
I'm sure the US won't want to leave Russia too much on its knees; just enough to know its place but not enough for it to fall apart at the seams.
BikeBikeBIke said:
Talksteer said:
To caveat this my military experience was infantry private, this is mostly stuff I've picked up from engineering and history.
When you think about tanks being supported by infantry the common assumption is that this will be the infantry gunning down ATGM launchers or similar. Also computer games and similar give a somewhat distorted view of what a military operation will look like particularly in terms of time, real ones take, days, weeks and months to occur and have units with hundreds of people in them meaning units can "multi task".
An actual operation will have an objective, a plan formulated at many different levels with extensive study of the terrain in advance and reconnaissance and intelligence inputs. Ideally the units involved will have practiced a comparable engagement before.
In terms of strengths and weaknesses a modern tank has generally one of the better optics on the battlefield, the more advanced ones will also have a thermal for the commander and might also have the loader on a stabilised thermal remote weapon system too. However the fields of view are pretty limited, the crew are deaf and if the vehicle is moving obviously the motion limits the ability of the crew to spot things.
Thus if a tank unit can limit the area that it needs to keep under observation it is very capable of spotting and responding to ATGM fire. The ATGMs are very conspicuous on thermals, air bursting HE rounds are very dangerous to infantry, tanks have rapid acting thermally opaque smoke dischargers which are an effective counter measure. However the most effective countermeasure is just to limit exposure. If the vehicle comes out of covers fires two rounds and then reverses back into it, thus spending not enough time in the open for an ATGM to acquire and fly out to it.
So the way that infantry supports a tank unit is by occupying ground so that when you bring the tanks forwards they can concentrate on the ground where the enemy targets are likely to be. Their flanks are protected because infantry units physically hold that ground or has it under observation.
Infantry are much smaller and have a lower signature hence they can generally get much closer to a target simply moving through dead ground hence they generally operate a long way ahead of a tank in most deliberate actions, thus the Infantry can screen the tank from infantry unguided AT weapons while still being well within the range where the tank can support them with their own weapons.
If you look at most successful ATGM strike videos the vehicle is generally sat stationary in an exposed position. The missile is fired from position outside the gunners field of view.
Thanks for taking the time to write this - it answers questions I didn't even know I had!When you think about tanks being supported by infantry the common assumption is that this will be the infantry gunning down ATGM launchers or similar. Also computer games and similar give a somewhat distorted view of what a military operation will look like particularly in terms of time, real ones take, days, weeks and months to occur and have units with hundreds of people in them meaning units can "multi task".
An actual operation will have an objective, a plan formulated at many different levels with extensive study of the terrain in advance and reconnaissance and intelligence inputs. Ideally the units involved will have practiced a comparable engagement before.
In terms of strengths and weaknesses a modern tank has generally one of the better optics on the battlefield, the more advanced ones will also have a thermal for the commander and might also have the loader on a stabilised thermal remote weapon system too. However the fields of view are pretty limited, the crew are deaf and if the vehicle is moving obviously the motion limits the ability of the crew to spot things.
Thus if a tank unit can limit the area that it needs to keep under observation it is very capable of spotting and responding to ATGM fire. The ATGMs are very conspicuous on thermals, air bursting HE rounds are very dangerous to infantry, tanks have rapid acting thermally opaque smoke dischargers which are an effective counter measure. However the most effective countermeasure is just to limit exposure. If the vehicle comes out of covers fires two rounds and then reverses back into it, thus spending not enough time in the open for an ATGM to acquire and fly out to it.
So the way that infantry supports a tank unit is by occupying ground so that when you bring the tanks forwards they can concentrate on the ground where the enemy targets are likely to be. Their flanks are protected because infantry units physically hold that ground or has it under observation.
Infantry are much smaller and have a lower signature hence they can generally get much closer to a target simply moving through dead ground hence they generally operate a long way ahead of a tank in most deliberate actions, thus the Infantry can screen the tank from infantry unguided AT weapons while still being well within the range where the tank can support them with their own weapons.
If you look at most successful ATGM strike videos the vehicle is generally sat stationary in an exposed position. The missile is fired from position outside the gunners field of view.
Also the whole beautifully choreographed mutually supporting plan is likely to go to hell once contact is established with the enemy. This is where good adaptive command at higher levels comes in, this is facilitated by developments in the last 20 years which don't get much attention. Relatively simple tools like digital battle planning and blue force tracker mean that the commanders have a much better idea of where their forces are and where the enemy is. In exploitation phases this can be a massive advantage.
In this sort of scenario armoured vehicles would be going forward en mass, if they run into a coordinated ambush or strongly defended location good planning, comms and digital tools mean that they can by-pass the point of strong resistance while targeting it rapidly with supporting arms like air or artillery. Doing this is a risk but being able to see where enemy have been spotted and also rapidly see what ground those positions have line of sight to makes this a much more calculated risk.
Fundamentally a tank fights in a pretty similar way to an infantryman, it's best to fire from cover, if you are going to move out of cover you want to make it as brief as possible and have another vehicle/unit cover you while you do it. If a bunch of infantry men got shot walking slowly across a field in full sight of enemy positions we wouldn't be having a debate about the future of infantry.
It has been noted that in the Kharkiv offensive that the Ukrainians achieved much of their gains with rapid advances with soft skin and some wheeled AFVs. The degree to which this was achieved with modern battle management and NATO intelligence vs google maps and WhatsApp messages from contacts in the next village will come out when the history is written. They key point is that they had an intelligence superiority and that the initial break throughs were accomplished with mechanized forces.
However I do suspect that a large gun armed heavy weight vehicle probably is on the way out, not because it is hopelessly vulnerable but because there are plenty of ways (both deployed and conceptual) to replicate the effect of an MBT which don't have the same costs, costs which have reduced the numbers of MBTs that many armies field do to a level where they would not be able to sustain a campaign or have sufficient mass of vehicles to
Adam. said:
GT03ROB said:
TopTrump said:
Solocle said:
Yep - a whole lot of detente between Israel and the Saudis / Gulf States in recent years. Precisely because Iran is increasingly seen as a common enemy.
If Iran formed a coalition it would be Lebanon, Syria, and parts of Iraq. Hardly a force for global domination.
It could however form a tentacle for the outliers. Like the South Africa's, Zimbabwe's etc who had no specific reason before and the initial religious aspect becomes a catalyst for something wider.If Iran formed a coalition it would be Lebanon, Syria, and parts of Iraq. Hardly a force for global domination.
Zimbabwe?!?!?
"Work is underway to secure F-16 fighter jets. We have positive signals from Poland, which is ready to transfer them to us in cooperation with NATO.” - Andrii Yermak, Head of the Ukrainian President's Office"
"Poland can hand over F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine in coordination with NATO, Prime Minister Moravetskyi said"
What flavour the F-16 will be has not been mentioned. Greece got the upgraded F16 Viper in November and this pissed off Turkey no end as they are being held out to dry over Finland/Swedens NATO entry. Greece has 150 F-16C, The Poles 48, the Dutch have 60 F16AM.
How the US fit into this and the F-35 programme is also a question as they have 1000 F-16 in the USAF and Bulgaria was hoping to have the F-16 in 2023 when the F-35 came in. Bydgoszsz in Poland service the F16 for Holland, Poland and Greece as well as the Mig 29, Su-22.
spookly said:
I was going to respond, but you wouldn't see it anyway with your head up your arse.
Do you mind me asking, where do you live/come from?
head up my arse? I don't think I've seen a thread with so many people with their heads up their arse. Your response exactly backs that up.Do you mind me asking, where do you live/come from?
Do I mind your asking? Considering you don't want to respond and are accusing me my head up my arse- what do you think my answer will be?
TopTrump said:
Ok then, a quick search;
Belarus, Cuba, Nicaragua, S.Africa, Syria, Iran Armenia, Venezuela, and Kyrgyzstan.
Just out of interest, why would South Africa want to be in a war right now?Belarus, Cuba, Nicaragua, S.Africa, Syria, Iran Armenia, Venezuela, and Kyrgyzstan.
...and why would Belarus? IIRC they only have 30k troops and if they wanted to be in a war there's been a very convenient one 0 miles from their doorstep for 11 months.
BikeBikeBIke said:
TopTrump said:
Ok then, a quick search;
Belarus, Cuba, Nicaragua, S.Africa, Syria, Iran Armenia, Venezuela, and Kyrgyzstan.
Just out of interest, why would South Africa want to be in a war right now?Belarus, Cuba, Nicaragua, S.Africa, Syria, Iran Armenia, Venezuela, and Kyrgyzstan.
...and why would Belarus? IIRC they only have 30k troops and if they wanted to be in a war there's been a very convenient one 0 miles from their doorstep for 11 months.
BobToc said:
The Armenians? Oh we're really f
ked then.
The very same Armenians that are pissed off with russia, because their lack of intervention when they were recently battling with Azerbaijan? ked then.Not sure they'll be ready to step up in helping russia...
The same Kyrgyzstan who's on an endless war with Tajikistan and probably is not keen to send men and weapons to help an "ally"?
Cuba? why should they send any help to russia? because once upon time Fidel was friend to the USSR?
Probably russia should have made a better choice of friends before embarking on this adventure
TopTrump said:
Adam. said:
I think he has been playing Risk.
Zimbabwe?!?!?
Ok then, a quick search;Zimbabwe?!?!?
Belarus, Cuba, Nicaragua, S.Africa, Syria, Iran Armenia, Venezuela, and Kyrgyzstan.
So what you are saying is that if Israel & Ukraine attack Iran, the Muslim world will see that as an attack on Islam, will suddenly unite with Russia against the west, and then South Africa & Zimbabwe will join in on the side of the Muslim world & Russia for some reason related to religion….. and will then be joined by Belarus, Cuba, Nicaragua, Armenia & Kyrgyzstan.
I think you can understand why we are a bit confused.
TopTrump said:
Adam. said:
I think he has been playing Risk.
Zimbabwe?!?!?
Ok then, a quick search;Zimbabwe?!?!?
Belarus, Cuba, Nicaragua, S.Africa, Syria, Iran Armenia, Venezuela, and Kyrgyzstan.
Do you ever actually think about things before you post them, or do you just double down on whatever nonsense springs to mind?
TopTrump said:
Adam. said:
I think he has been playing Risk.
Zimbabwe?!?!?
Ok then, a quick search;Zimbabwe?!?!?
Belarus, Cuba, Nicaragua, S.Africa, Syria, Iran, Armenia, Venezuela, and Kyrgyzstan.
Are you googling countries that are sympathetic to Russia regardless of whether they have a large Muslim population or any military threat, to back up your argument of escalation via scary Muslim countries joining Russia?
This may be the party frock, maybe in a lovely shade of Green rather than Middle East tan you see here for the Ukrainian MBT and IFVs being sent, its made by SAAB and blocks 90% of the thermal signature rather than just visual. 
As the main challenge for Ukraine will be the Russians with thermal kit who use the meat wave to draw fire. It can also be removed from the tank and used as cover.
As the main challenge for Ukraine will be the Russians with thermal kit who use the meat wave to draw fire. It can also be removed from the tank and used as cover.
TopTrump said:
spookly said:
I was going to respond, but you wouldn't see it anyway with your head up your arse.
Do you mind me asking, where do you live/come from?
head up my arse? I don't think I've seen a thread with so many people with their heads up their arse. Your response exactly backs that up.Do you mind me asking, where do you live/come from?
Do I mind your asking? Considering you don't want to respond and are accusing me my head up my arse- what do you think my answer will be?
When there is a near complete consensus that your views are wrong and/or ridiculous then maybe they are. Had you even thought of that possibility?
Edited by spookly on Monday 30th January 15:48
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff