5 ms·

While Ukrainian conflict shows the opposite?

by dgan 3y ago

thriftwy 3y ago
Does it? FPVs and Lancet drones and anti-ship missiles and Shahed/Geran' reliably show their ability to hit many of orders of magnitude value targets. The future of the warfare is when you have no high-value targets at all on the battlefield and everything is spread out as evenly as possible.
- geraldhh 3y ago
  > The future of the warfare is when you have no high-value targets at all on the battlefield and everything is spread out as evenly as possible. that would put the utmost importance on communication and orchestration
gpderetta 3y ago
I think it is more complicated. Both sides are consuming huge quantities of cheap artillery, drones, SAM, anti-tank mines and vehicles. HIMARS and smart artillery shells can make up for differences in fire powers, but only up to a point. Better tanks and IFV increase crew survivability, but they still get taken out of combats by drones, artillery and mines. I'm sure Ukraine air force would love long range AA missiles (to counter the Russian ones) and stealth planes to avoid SAM (but Russians are not using theirs, probably because they suck, but still...).
- jojobas 3y ago
  Artillery wasn't cheap in WW1 and it isn't cheap now. Dumb 155mm howitzer shells are ~$3k apiece. The cheapest SAMs (ex-Soviet MANPADs) are easily 20 times that.
  - badpun 3y ago
    > Dumb 155mm howitzer shells are ~$3k apiece. In the West. In Russia (according to NYT piece), it's $600.
k__ 3y ago
Could be that the Russian tech isn't just old, but also badly maintained.
genman 3y ago
Russian genocidal war against Ukraine is not yet settled and the weapons used there are in constant evolution. If anything it is the response of Israel to the 7th October genocide that shows that expensive weapon systems in the hands of competent military still triumph any low cost approaches.
- genman 3y ago
  I see that many downvoters don't like that the things are named properly by their intent - I take it as showing support to the genocide in both cases. It still remains a fact that the genocidal war started by Russia has not yet been decided and both, attacking and defending sides are trying to figure out the weapon systems to accomplish their military goals and these weapon systems are going through rapid development and "field testing". It also remains a fact that low tech weaponry used by the terrorist organizations in Gaza has had very limited effect against the well equipped and highly motivated IDF.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    The only side accused of Genozid in the current Gaza war is Israel. October 7th was a terror attack, not Genozid. What Russia does in Ukraine is a conventional war, not Genozid neither.
    - mopsi 3y ago
      > What Russia does in Ukraine is a conventional war, not Genozid neither. Scholars of genocide disagree with your assessment. Russian actions against Ukrainians, from massacres to kidnapping of children and burning Ukrainian books, not to mention declarations that Ukrainians don't exist at all, are obvious signs of genocial intent and genocide itself. https://newlinesinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/English-Report-2.pdf https://newlinesinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/English-Rep... Articles like the infamous "What Russia Should Do with Ukraine" also leave no doubt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Russia_Should_Do_with_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Russia_Should_Do_with_Ukr... After all, why does Putin have so much trouble travelling internationally? Because the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for kidnapping of children, which he openly boasted about, apparently not understanding that rest of the world sees that as a form of genocide. The only ones I've seen argue against calling Russian actions in Ukraine a genocide are those who sometimes accidentally use Russian phrases when writing in English, that is, the denial is emotional, not fact-based.

While Ukrainian conflict shows the opposite?

by dgan 3y ago

While Ukrainian conflict shows the opposite?

Does it? FPVs and Lancet drones and anti-ship missiles and Shahed/Geran' reliably show their ability to hit many of orders of magnitude value targets. The future of the warfare is when you have no high-value targets at all on the battlefield and everything is spread out as evenly as possible.

geraldhh 3y ago
> The future of the warfare is when you have no high-value targets at all on the battlefield and everything is spread out as evenly as possible. that would put the utmost importance on communication and orchestration

gpderetta 3y ago

I think it is more complicated. Both sides are consuming huge quantities of cheap artillery, drones, SAM, anti-tank mines and vehicles. HIMARS and smart artillery shells can make up for differences in fire powers, but only up to a point. Better tanks and IFV increase crew survivability, but they still get taken out of combats by drones, artillery and mines. I'm sure Ukraine air force would love long range AA missiles (to counter the Russian ones) and stealth planes to avoid SAM (but Russians are not using theirs, probably because they suck, but still...).

jojobas 3y ago
Artillery wasn't cheap in WW1 and it isn't cheap now. Dumb 155mm howitzer shells are ~$3k apiece. The cheapest SAMs (ex-Soviet MANPADs) are easily 20 times that.
- badpun 3y ago
  > Dumb 155mm howitzer shells are ~$3k apiece. In the West. In Russia (according to NYT piece), it's $600.

k__ 3y ago

Could be that the Russian tech isn't just old, but also badly maintained.

genman 3y ago

Russian genocidal war against Ukraine is not yet settled and the weapons used there are in constant evolution. If anything it is the response of Israel to the 7th October genocide that shows that expensive weapon systems in the hands of competent military still triumph any low cost approaches.

genman 3y ago
I see that many downvoters don't like that the things are named properly by their intent - I take it as showing support to the genocide in both cases. It still remains a fact that the genocidal war started by Russia has not yet been decided and both, attacking and defending sides are trying to figure out the weapon systems to accomplish their military goals and these weapon systems are going through rapid development and "field testing". It also remains a fact that low tech weaponry used by the terrorist organizations in Gaza has had very limited effect against the well equipped and highly motivated IDF.
- hef19898 3y ago
  The only side accused of Genozid in the current Gaza war is Israel. October 7th was a terror attack, not Genozid. What Russia does in Ukraine is a conventional war, not Genozid neither.
  - mopsi 3y ago
    > What Russia does in Ukraine is a conventional war, not Genozid neither. Scholars of genocide disagree with your assessment. Russian actions against Ukrainians, from massacres to kidnapping of children and burning Ukrainian books, not to mention declarations that Ukrainians don't exist at all, are obvious signs of genocial intent and genocide itself. https://newlinesinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/English-Report-2.pdf https://newlinesinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/English-Rep... Articles like the infamous "What Russia Should Do with Ukraine" also leave no doubt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Russia_Should_Do_with_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Russia_Should_Do_with_Ukr... After all, why does Putin have so much trouble travelling internationally? Because the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for kidnapping of children, which he openly boasted about, apparently not understanding that rest of the world sees that as a form of genocide. The only ones I've seen argue against calling Russian actions in Ukraine a genocide are those who sometimes accidentally use Russian phrases when writing in English, that is, the denial is emotional, not fact-based.