Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[FunkMonk]

I once read somewhere that T-72s were godlike invincible machines that were better than Abrams tanks. Can't remember where I read that, though.

[Berkut]

[OttoVonBismarck]

In regard to the tank discussion--mind you the Cold War thinking on mass tank warfare is really out of date even more because of airpower than man-portable anti-tank weapons. Attack helicopters have had devastating anti-tank for about 45 years that has just gotten moreso the closer you get to present day, and most of these modern helos can literally take out a half dozen tanks in rapid succession, and from much further range than man-portable AT.

One reason it has continued to surprise me Russia didn't obtain air supremacy is it would allow them to use helos extensively which would typically have a really bad impact on Ukrainian ground forces. Note that while there have always been infantry weapons that can shoot down helicopters in most modern wars their ratio isn't particularly amazing. We flew thousands and thousands of Apache sorties in Iraq and Afghanistan, and successful shoot downs and losses were quite low--and they certainly tried. We had a bigger number of Apaches damaged and returned to service.

[Berkut]

I think most people recognize that in high intensity warfare against near peers, helos are just too vulnerable though. You can only use them when you have air superiority, and they are very vulnerable to any kind of near technology AA systems.

In Iraq, we did NOT fly lots of helo missions at all in the early stages where there was any chance of the Iraqis having unsuppressed modern AA. It was only afterwards, when we had largely neutralized that threat that we used heloes routinely.

Once that happened, and in Afghanistan, there wasn't significant amount of good AA amongst our enemies. And we still lost a decent number, a couple hundred losses, IIRC? That is low compared to missions run, but not THAT low.

AT helos are certainly a threat to armor, of course. But their use has their own issues. You cannot use them without air superiority, they are incredibly expensive, require extensive training for their crews and support teams, have a huge logistical footprint themselves, and are vulnerable themselves. That doesn't really compare to some routine soldier with a Javelin.

An Apache itself costs something like 2.5 times what a modern MBT costs. A Javelin missile and launcher costs 1/15th what a MBT costs. The Apache requires an airbase, and fuel, and an entire crew of people to fly it, and a larger crew to maintain it. It has a limited range. A javelin can be used by any infantryman with half a brain and almost no training, and takes no appreciable support.

I think helos are more an example of what you mentioned earlier - a threat that has to be considered and dealt with, but doesn't really change the calculus of armored warfare. 

[Zanza]

What can a manned helicopter do that a drone can't do much cheaper and safer for the pilot?

[HVC]

I would assume carry more ordinance. Seems like drones are one and done before needing to head back to be reloaded. Although I could be mistaken.

[Admiral Yi]

I think the bigger ones can carry like 4 hellfires.

Hover in place, obviously, but I don't know how relevant that is for tank busting.

[Jacob]

Interesting article in the Nation - an interview with Brig. Gen. Kyrylo Budanov, Ukraine's Defense Intelligence Chief.

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/exclusive-ukraines-defense-intelligence-chief-warns-of-real-hell-for-russians/

[DGuller]

That article is very interesting, but that comment section... . What kind of publication is The Nation anyway?

[Josquius]

One reason it has continued to surprise me Russia didn't obtain air supremacy is it would allow them to use helos extensively which would typically have a really bad impact on Ukrainian ground forces. Note that while there have always been infantry weapons that can shoot down helicopters in most modern wars their ratio isn't particularly amazing. We flew thousands and thousands of Apache sorties in Iraq and Afghanistan, and successful shoot downs and losses were quite low--and they certainly tried. We had a bigger number of Apaches damaged and returned to service.

Yes. Its quite suspicious really.
Given all the stories of corruption and poor maintainance and helicopters being far more complex machines than land vehicles I do wonder if the problem lies that way.

I would assume carry more ordinance. Seems like drones are one and done before needing to head back to be reloaded. Although I could be mistaken.

Surely if you wanted to you could make a drone as well armed as a manned helicopter?
Moreso even as you don't have the pilot and his equipment on board.

[DGuller]

I think both anti-tank and pro-tank warfare will shift to drones, there are just too many advantages to them.  In anti-tank warfare, drones would assume the role of helicopters.  In tank defense, drones would replace supporting infantry for sniffing out the ambush teams blasting them away before they fire their Javelins.

[Admiral Yi]

That article is very interesting, but that comment section... . What kind of publication is The Nation anyway?

Lefty opinion magazine

[The Brain]

I hear claims that Russian soldiers who took up positions in the "Red Forest" area of Chernobyl have been withdrawn with acute radiation sickness and sent to a specialist medical facility in Belarus. If in fact there are cases of acute radiation sickness they must have gotten a very high dose. I will observe though that simply sending people to a special facility doesn't necessarily mean that they have radiation sickness. It could simply be for examinations to determine how much internal contamination they have.

[Tamas]

I hear claims that Russian soldiers who took up positions in the "Red Forest" area of Chernobyl have been withdrawn with acute radiation sickness and sent to a specialist medical facility in Belarus. If in fact there are cases of acute radiation sickness they must have gotten a very high dose. I will observe though that simply sending people to a special facility doesn't necessarily mean that they have radiation sickness. It could simply be for examinations to determine how much internal contamination they have.

I think if you are conscripted cannon fodder in a war of aggression you most definitely not want to be part of and used to garrison the site of a former nuclear incident, convincing others and/or yourself that you have radiation poisoning is a pretty good way of getting out of it.

[Tamas]

Task & Purpose guy has his latest take on the situation up, I continue to like this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REBRCVqnbiA