Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?

I3BrigPvSk said:
Russia continues to waste resources in suicidal attacks. Ukraine seems to have launched what can be a major offensive close to Kherson
Click to expand...
The Russian plan seems to be fairly straight forward, throw thousands of poorly trained idiots at a position until eventually they capture it no matter what the cost and to be honest if Russians a stupid enough to waddle aimlessly into Ukrainian gunfire for months on end to capture 100m of ground I guess it is a viable plan.

I think the big question for me is why they don't turn their guns on their leaders and go home.

I really doubt the idea of a "major" Ukrainian offensive across the Dnieper as they still can't supply heavy weapons to support an assault and without armour and artillery it is never going to get more than a few kilometers from the riverbank.
 
MontyB said:
The Russian plan seems to be fairly straight forward, throw thousands of poorly trained idiots at a position until eventually they capture it no matter what the cost and to be honest if Russians a stupid enough to waddle aimlessly into Ukrainian gunfire for months on end to capture 100m of ground I guess it is a viable plan.

I think the big question for me is why they don't turn their guns on their leaders and go home.

I really doubt the idea of a "major" Ukrainian offensive across the Dnieper as they still can't supply heavy weapons to support an assault and without armour and artillery it is never going to get more than a few kilometers from the riverbank.
Click to expand...
Even if Dnieper is an obstacle and it is not a good idea to launch an offensive across it. The Ukrainians are closer to Crimea and when the Ruskies are wasting men and equipment in the east, why not do something unexpected
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
Even if Dnieper is an obstacle and it is not a good idea to launch an offensive across it. The Ukrainians are closer to Crimea and when the Ruskies are wasting men and equipment in the east, why not do something unexpected
Click to expand...
I believe it is where they should have gone from the start along with strengthening the forces attacking around Bakhmut but without being able to support the river crossing with armour even the Russians can figure out it is going nowhere so they resist with minimal forces.
I would argue that it isn't unexpected nor is it considered as anything more than harassing attacks so it isn't diverting Russian forces in any great number, unexpected would be a solid push of 10km+ and some armour which would scare the crap out of the Russians.
 
The war is an artillery and infantry battle and it seems the Ukrainians have deployed more forces in the Kherson region while the Russian continue to waste resources in the east
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
The war is an artillery and infantry battle and it seems the Ukrainians have deployed more forces in the Kherson region while the Russian continue to waste resources in the east
Click to expand...
While true the overall conduct of armoured operations leads me to question whether we couldn't do away with the MBT altogether and replace it with the modern equivalent of the assault gun along the lines of the StuG III/Jadgpanzer IV or more recently the Swedish Stridsvagn 103.

The turret seems largely pointless so remove it and up armour the vehicle and you still have a cheap effective vehicle capable of supporting infantry and engaging armour, to date I haven't seen any large scale tank on tank engagements it has been mostly 1 vs 1 and MBTs providing infantry support in trench assaults.
 
Last edited:
There are two other type of vehicles, CV-120 and the American Boxer. They can maybe be something similar as the old tank destroyer. THe problem I have with CV-90, Bradley and all the other IFVs and APCs is they are rather easy to destroy when they lack the armor protection. That's why I like the Israeli Merkava tank.

Vehicles without turret cannot fire while moving
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
There are two other type of vehicles, CV-120 and the American Boxer. They can maybe be something similar as the old tank destroyer. THe problem I have with CV-90, Bradley and all the other IFVs and APCs is they are rather easy to destroy when they lack the armor protection. That's why I like the Israeli Merkava tank.

Vehicles without turret cannot fire while moving
Click to expand...
I haven't figured out why turretless vehicles can't fire while moving, surely it is a matter of how the gun is mounted.
 
MontyB said:
I haven't figured out why turretless vehicles can't fire while moving, surely it is a matter of how the gun is mounted.
Click to expand...
You are the engineer here. Hehe. Theoretically it can if the gun is stabilized and it would require really good suspensions on the vehicle.
 
George said:
They may have to move/swivel just to get a line on the target.
Click to expand...
The StuG III had a 24-degree firing arc (a major issue at close range but at 1000m it gives something like a 415m field of fire without having to move) it isn't a lot but with modern technical capabilities I imagine that could be improved and given the way armour is being used in this conflict it is probably enough.

I3BrigPvSk said:
You are the engineer here. Hehe. Theoretically it can if the gun is stabilized and it would require really good suspensions on the vehicle.
Click to expand...
I am not sure many chemical engineers are designing and building tanks, but I am prepared to give it a shot, I really don't see why gun stabilisation would be all that difficult as we have mastered it in a ton of other vehicles.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
The StuG III had a 24-degree firing arc (a major issue at close range but at 1000m it gives something like a 415m field of fire without having to move) it isn't a lot but with modern technical capabilities I imagine that could be improved and given the way armour is being used in this conflict it is probably enough.


I am not sure many chemical engineers are designing and building tanks, but I am prepared to give it a shot, I really don't see why gun stabilisation would be all that difficult as we have mastered it in a ton of other vehicles.
Click to expand...
The problem I see with having vehicles without turrets is if the vehicle identify and engage multiple targets. The turret moves between the targets much faster and if the vehicle moves while doing it increases the vehicle's survivability. I am thinking about how the US armored cavalry trashed through a unit of the Iraqi Republican Guard in the battle of 73 Easting. We haven't seen similar battles during the war in Ukraine (what I know of)
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
The problem I see with having vehicles without turrets is if the vehicle identify and engage multiple targets. The turret moves between the targets much faster and if the vehicle moves while doing it increases the vehicle's survivability. I am thinking about how the US armored cavalry trashed through a unit of the Iraqi Republican Guard in the battle of 73 Easting. We haven't seen similar battles during the war in Ukraine (what I know of)
Click to expand...
That is certainly the way the west has perceived armoured warfare to be going but maybe we were wrong and mass armoured engagements are a thing of the past, I would suggest that in this war most armour is being destroyed by mines, artillery, ATGMs and not other other armour.
Now I am not suggesting that there is no place for MBTs in modern force structure but that perhaps the idea of great tank battles are no longer viable and an intermediary infantry support vehicle such as the 103 has a place.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
That is certainly the way the west has perceived armoured warfare to be going but maybe we were wrong and mass armoured engagements are a thing of the past, I would suggest that in this war most armour is being destroyed by mines, artillery, ATGMs and not other other armour.
Now I am not suggesting that there is no place for MBTs in modern force structure but that perhaps the idea of great tank battles are no longer viable and an intermediary infantry support vehicle such as the 103 has a place.
Click to expand...
I think you said tanks are back to how they were used during world war one and I agree. The circle is complete. Tanks will be used as a support for the infantry and not the other way around. My major concern is the IFV and APC, they are quite easy to destroy when they aren't equally protected as the MBTs. The IFVs and APCs can theoretically increase the armor protection, but is it usable to have IFVs weighing in like MBTs?
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
I think you said tanks are back to how they were used during world war one and I agree. The circle is complete. Tanks will be used as a support for the infantry and not the other way around. My major concern is the IFV and APC, they are quite easy to destroy when they aren't equally protected as the MBTs. The IFVs and APCs can theoretically increase the armor protection, but is it usable to have IFVs weighing in like MBTs?
Click to expand...
I guess keeping an eye on Israel's Namer will tell us whether a heavily armoured IFV is viable, I also suspect the vehicles anticipated operating terrain is the key factor as I don't imagine there are many swamps in the middle east for example.
I also would prefer to see it equipped with something more powerful than a 50 cal.
 
MontyB said:
I guess keeping an eye on Israel's Namer will tell us whether a heavily armoured IFV is viable, I also suspect the vehicles anticipated operating terrain is the key factor as I don't imagine there are many swamps in the middle east for example.
I also would prefer to see it equipped with something more powerful than a 50 cal.
Click to expand...
They also need to have protection against small and cheap drones. Machine guns can do that if they can detect the drones. Maybe it is the way to go. To have APCs and IFVs with same protection as MBTs and preferably with something heavier than a 50 cal and AT missiles
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
They also need to have protection against small and cheap drones. Machine guns can do that if they can detect the drones. Maybe it is the way to go. To have APCs and IFVs with same protection as MBTs and preferably with something heavier than a 50 cal and AT missiles
Click to expand...
I would prefer something similar to a Gepard with a crew/transport compartment myself.
Maybe a 20-30mm radar assisted autocannon but I feel a 50cal is just too light, it may be adequate against lightly armed groups like Hamas but I don't think I would be comfortable against a professional force.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top