The Military Thread

Again that is still not believable on a per-month basis.

The popular story is that the US pilots sent to the Gulf War found themselves flying Cold War missions they'd been trained for; to knock out a massive static air defense grid in the fastest way possible.

Given that they have been known to be expending 2000 ATGM a month it's not that unreasonable.

Ukraine's absurd ammo expenditure compared to NATOs production rates is a noted pain point in this whole thing.

Edited by Imca on May 22nd 2023 at 5:46:32 AM

It isn't believable at 10k a month. There are simply not enough cheap-ass radio shack drones flowing in to support that never mind the rest of their drone fleet. That isn't touching on the number of drones they have been converting for various purposes from munition to recon and other platforms.

There is also a world of difference in high-use expendables like artillery shells and a drone. For one there are a lot more artillery shells and similar munition stockpiles and it is easier to churn out a shell rather than a drone. 2000 a month across the whole theatre is way more believable for general munitions than drones. It took some time to strain the US ability to supply said munitions. 10k a month would pretty much gut the drone market alone. If this is 10k from start to finish in every category that might be believable but not 10k a month. I don't think you folks appreciate the scope and scale of units that represents.

On average the Ukranians have purchased smaller drones at most a few hundred at a time per month. The biggest order was last year with some drones oriented more for the intended purpose at 1,400 in one month. 10k a month is just not plausible.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on May 22nd 2023 at 8:04:09 AM

A cheap RadioShack drone is under 100$.

A cheap ATGM is sevral thousand, with most systems being tens of thousands.

It's not that unbelievable you can just mass buy them off the civilian market for the cost they are.

10,000 a month isn't even the cost of one tank.

Drones are cheap high production items themselfs any more Tuffy, these arent RQ-1 b there quadrocopters you buy in the hobby section of best buy.

Edited by Imca on May 22nd 2023 at 6:14:52 AM

Chinese propagandists not making the West look badass challenge: impossible.

First, "King of Hell" Dark Brandon, now immortal zombie Ukrainian Air Force.

Immy. It isn't about cost alone, far from it. Your still not understanding that the cheap ass civilian drone market is simply not set up to churn out and supply a single country with that kind of in put.

The Ukrainians are also not just using the bottom barrel units either. They are using a broad mix from cheap units to ones costing tens of thousands of dollars in some cases.

There is also the issue of delivery. They are not getting next day Amazon prime shipments. Some of this stuff including cheap drones and simple kit has taken up to a couple months to arrive. There logistics is just as kludged as some of there weapons. They also take time to prep and distribute the units.

That is before you start looking limitations put in place by a few companies and some countries not always being willing to ship material to Ukraine.

There recon drones were numbered at most around 6 thousand max by the end of last year and were a broad mix of units. Last I checked there recon has been stymied not nearly wiped out of existence.

No 10k a month is not a believable attrition rate.

That expenditure rate for missiles you cited earlier was previously exaggerated to a similar degree and we discussed it here. 2k a month is lot but far more believable than much higher numbers.

Chances are equally good this is yet another exaggeration to try and drum up support, something Ukraine has done more than once before.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on May 23rd 2023 at 2:31:32 PM

The number of ATGM fired a month hasn't changed, the only thing that has is the wording, the intial claim was 500 a week.

...

Which is 2000 a month.

No, it was higher by a large degree. The 500 claim was just for Stingers and Javelins alone which never matched up. The US literally had not sent enough Javelin missiles alone by that point for that to be anything but a very obvious exaggeration.

To highlight that fact we have sent around 8,000 Missiles in total if that claim were still accurate, it isn't and never was, they would have expended every Javelin missile by now, which they haven't.

Like I noted back then 2,000 a month across all systems across the whole theatre would be believable not 2000 a month for just one system which at the time we were still in the process of sending them the large shipment. Which by the way would push that munitions use estimate way higher per month.

Again you're not understanding the bigger picture and taking an obvious exaggeration at face value

Add in two more factors. DJI is cutting off the region and the Ukrainians are looking for replacements as the Russian ECM and counter-drone efforts knock the cheap commercial drones out of being effective units.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on May 23rd 2023 at 3:11:04 AM

Anyway, the alternative to stealth is superior avionics. Ask the Swedes.

Going back to the tank talk:

Indirect fire is a very inefficient way to use tanks, yeah — but the Ukrainians, at least, have been doing it for years. They train for it, they have firing tables and SOPs to walk it in with drones and other means. And the Soviet-pattern 125mm HE-FRAG has much more raw bonk than the 120mm HEAT-MP rounds that NATO uses for the same purpose.

Right now their priority is doing the most with limited resources (including supporting assets that improve tanks' survivability in a spearhead role), so using their tanks this way makes sense.

Tuffy raised a good point about tanks rapidly building up heat on the move, but I think both sides using them for long-range fire could maybe mitigate them somewhat. At 2 km out, tanks can use camouflage and cover (whether natural or in prepared fighting positions) to fire from hull-down, which I think would minimise the visible thermal signature from e.g. engine and tracks. Shoot-and-scoot is also an option.

The ATGM threat will always be there, sure. But it can be managed with good use of camouflage and cover, just like everything else.

Reuters: Russian hypersonic scientist accused of betraying secrets to China.

A lot of the newer 125mm HE shells and upgraded T-80s and the T-90s come with fancy fuzing options too. They sure wouldn't be my first pick for an ad-hoc artillery piece but an airbursting 125mm HE shell is an airbursting 125mm HE shell.

Edited by LeGarcon on May 24th 2023 at 6:58:57 AM

Eagle: On the tank heat, that is in part why I think the thermal blankets are a key factor. They last long enough that on the move or shoot and scoot at range would be highly effective.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on May 25th 2023 at 2:11:21 PM

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2023/05/e10d582506e2-urgent-several-crew-of-us-navy-ship-in-japan-suspected-of-drug-trafficking.html

US Navy is investigating sailors who smuggled drugs to Japan.

How does a thermal blanket on a tank work?

Probably makes the motor less visible by making the heat come from a larger area.

That doesn't sound like it would work. Anyone got a link, google is letting me down.

Given the laws of physics, I am not sure how ‘else’ such a thing would work. Of course, maybe the name is misleading…

You're saying that they are using radiators that are so large the heat is dissipated beyond being detectable by modern IR sensors? How big are these things? How are they attached to the tanks? Where do they put them during the day?

No, of course not. The suggestion is that an anti-tank missile's IR sensor is programmed to look for 200 degree engine exhaust against a 70 degree ambient background, a 130 differential. But if you put thermal blankets over the exhaust, then that spreads the heat out over a larger area — it's the same total amount of heat energy, but it's less concentrated, so it's a lower temperature. If your thermal blanket is at 100 degrees, now your IR sensor has to look for 100 degree thermally camouflaged engine exhaust against a 70 degree ambient background, so your differential is only 30 degrees, which is much harder than detecting the unshielded exhaust.

The specific numbers aren't accurate (I just made them up to illustrate the point) but you get the idea.

IIRC they work by dissipating the heat, blocking the Lo S of heat irradiation and taking longer to heat up like the rest of the tank.

They don't work 100%, it is nearly impossible for any armored vehicle to not give away a heat signature, it just might be possible to change the silhouette at long ranges, near the maximum resolution ranges of certain ATG Ms where they won't be able to ID or lock on vehicles.

Ah, that makes more sense. I assume the attacker can reprogram the missile to detect the new heat sig?

I would think that would result in a lot more false positives where the missile targets and hits random dirt.

Why would that happen? It's just looking for a different heat differential, not no differential at all.

Anyone know if object recognition plays any role in AT missile guidance systems?

Edited by DeMarquis on May 26th 2023 at 11:32:18 AM