Russian special military operation in Ukraine #44

Fewer people in the tank means less casualties in case of complete destruction of the tank.
This concept is followed by the Russians, the Chinese and only the French in the West.
In the Far East Type-90 and K2.

Serberus wrote:

This is the naval variant - the Ka-52K.

ISDM Zemledeliye - Agriculture Remote Mining System



it appears that Russia is allowing the Western-supplied mine breachers/clearers to do their work, then allowing the Leopards and Bradleys to advance to a certain point. Then as the armor groupings are being engaged by Russian ambush forces and attack copters, the ISDM remote-mining system is being used to spray mines all over the rear retreat corridors of the AFU grouping.

It has a claimed 10-15km range and automated firing as well as many advanced features, such as: the mines can be programmable (depending on mine type) to either self-destruct or go inert after a certain time. This allows you to heavily mine the enemy without worrying that those same mines will affect your own future offensive through that corridor. Secondly, it gives you a networked computer-mapped image of roughly where the mines are spread so you can keep track of the minefields on digital maps.

As can be seen each system can fire off up to 50 casettes each holding a dozen mines. That means within seconds, a single unit can lay upwards of 600 mines, and several units together can create a vast impenetrable minefield in moments.

The West gave a harsh assessment of the counter-offensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine American and European military experts said that the UAF counteroffensive violated the basic rules of military tactics. This is reported by the portal Asia Times.

“We tried to tell them to stop this piecemeal and suicidal tactic, identify the main attack with proper infantry support, and then do what they can,” a senior European officer said. In his opinion, the fighters of the Armed Forces of Ukraine run in five different directions. Also, the tanks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine went to the minefields, not letting the demining vehicles forward. This resulted in the loss of 38 tanks on the night of 8 June. One of the experts added that the Ukrainian military was trained in this in the UK. “ The Ukrainians were trying to play Guderian,” one of the military experts said , “only Guderian had 3,000 tanks, and these idiots just lost the 30 they had .”



NATO pretends that it knows to overcome this scenario, but in reality there is no way, except to have air support and hunt these systems as the firing range is pretty short - 10-15km,

BTW Ukrainians use 155mm RAAM shells, and M270 MARS rockets to lay the exact same mines behind RU positions, but RU can hunt these systems with MI28 and KA52, while Ukraine does not have systems to do so

Maybe AH64 apache will be a better aid to Ukraine than F16, although they will need fighters and air defense to protect those helicopters from RU aviation

There is no time for Ukraine to bring anything new to the frontline. They will fight with what they have. Don’t expect Ah-64s. 

What can we expect that this will last for long time. Lots of back forth changes on the map. They would love to do massive assaults, but the ground, mines, artillery, aviation negates this.

Ah-64 is kinda finicky tbh. Our (Indonesian) AH-64E requires purified water (aquadest) for washing.

Makarovka back under control.

Stealthflanker wrote:Ah-64 is kinda finicky tbh.  Our (Indonesian) AH-64E requires purified water (aquadest) for washing.

Are you serious? lol. Maybe the Russians should use rockets with dirty water instead of themobarics lol.

GarryB wrote:

If glide bombs are not useful, then just use Smerch MLRS to **** everything up in the enemy's direction when the enemy is approaching your position.
That would solve 50% of the problems related to Ukrop's offensive.

This is just the tip of the spear, later attacks might consist of hundreds of vehicles and thousands of men... if you use up all your heavy glide bombs on the 10 vehicle 300 men attacks, what will you have left for the bigger groups of enemy troops?

So far Russia has been quite effective at detecting marshalling points and hitting them. Perhaps this is why the attack has been so shambolic. Because they simply cannot build a sizable contingent without it being detected and attacked. So all they can do is gather 5-6 tanks and if they wait too long it gets attacked. With the satellites Russia has launched to observe the battlefield, I don't think its really possible for Ukraine to gather a force of any meaningful size without it being pummeled from the air or with one of ground based missile systems. My only criticism is the are being a bit stingy with the number of bombs they drop when they have a juicy target. Only taking out 40-50% of the target vs eviscerating it completely. Maybe they are constrained in glide bombs or maybe its an error in target classsification, or maybe they do a second strike later. Not sure.

Isos wrote:Where is mi-28NM ?

I was waiting for those images since the start. Choppers destroying US stuff by dozen at once. That's why they created it and it is doing properly the work. Pop up above friendly heads where there is no AD systems and shoot towards the advancing vehicles on the front before they arrive in range to use their guns.

With the mines all over there is no way any ukro vehicles penetrates russian defences. Even if it penetrates kornet is waiting.

Meanwhile Lancet strikes 20km in the rear on supply vehicles. And artillery targets infantry.

That's a hell for ukros.

The huge but most significant difference in terms of survivability is the lack of standardized DIRCM L-370-5 dazzlers on Mi-28NM, which even the Mi-35VM3 has. I don't know why exactly they are so fucking slow with equipping them with this essential survivability kit, but reality is as it is and they don't have them standardized even as a addon-kit they had them only on few machines. I think that is the real reason why you don't see them that often.

Mi-35VM(3)


Mi-28N new wing tip containers LWR+MAWS+FLAR/CHAFF dispensers


Mi-28N/NM new wing tip container with EO dazzlers which GarryB posted long time ago



The Ka-52 has the "balls of steel" standardized today and you can see them on all machines and in same cases for a few at least the mounting points. The Mi-28NM has additional kits that can be applied to the tips of the stubbed wings, but the electro-optical dazzlers are far smaller and therefore most probably weaker and have less power and therefore efficiency to counter incoming IR-Homing missiles. I admit, this is my own guess but from physical capabilities size does usually matter and would be plausible when comparing Ka-52 and Mi-28N/NM EO dazzler capabilities/efficiency.

Like Regular already mentioned, currently the Mi-28N isn't a frontline ass kicker like Ka-52 and Mi-24 but a long range LMUR trebucheting all the stuff the front soldier can mark with a drone.

Belisarius wrote:
Today in "aged like milk" news...
https://t.me/DDGeopolitics/68688

I would say aged like Protein Shake in 40° celsius in a black toyota pickup truck in the open sun. The smell would kill ya!

Seig wrote:Well, thats if the Bradly was against armor but in this case, its not...so the context is much different, don't recall anyone claiming bradleys would run over mines like nothing and shrug off arty hits...or take atgms and be fine

The first part might be the case for BMP1 and semi-believable for BMP2, but the TOWs are useless by todays standard even for T-72B ERA equipped. They are garbage ATGMs and can only be launched from standing position. So the comment by itself is ridiculous even in head on head engagement with any soviet tank.

PapaDragon wrote:

Are you fùcking kidding me?    

Lamborghini is less sensitive than that

That's true. as our climate does promote corrosion to the airframe. That's yes something which doesnt seem to happen on our Mi-35's. Given that we operate Mi-35 first before Apache, our procurement assumes that it would be the same as Mi-35, despite the fact there were studies on US that Apache needs additional treatment and changes to properly operates in naval or tropical environment.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Well, thats if the Bradly was against armor but in this case, its not...so the context is much different, don't recall anyone claiming bradleys would run over mines like nothing and shrug off arty hits...or take atgms and be fine

This is a full scale conventional battlefield - so it really doesn't matter what they're up against. The Bradleys suck because of lack of support.
Btw the Bradley was heavily criticized when it was first produced for it's lack of adequate armoured protection. This was only partly dealt with to keep the local critics happy, but these vehicles are still extremely vulnerable. These are battle taxis in reality and not Armoured Fighting Vehicles that can punch it out with battle tanks - even with the wundewaffe TOWs!

Mir wrote:

 These are battle taxis in reality and not Armoured Fighting Vehicles that can punch it out with battle tanks - even with the wundewaffe TOWs!

To be fair the same can be said about any of its contemporaries from around the globe, BMP-2M beeing the prime example that comes to mind.

Yes none of these vehicles can pretend to take on tanks and come out as the winner. They can only support tanks and infantry.
The only vehicle that probably can is the T-15 because of its heavy armour. Israel have similar heavy APC's but they are too lightly armed to take on any tanks.

Full in depth report of the last 3 days and in particular the battle for the salient Vremevsky today

Maps, analysis, frontline reports, it took me hours to compile and write, I finally sorted out what was happening

https://guerraenucrania.wordpress.com/2023/06/12/parte-de-guerra-12-06-2023-el-saliente-de-vremevsky/

I would like to see this beast..

I don't think there will ever be more "American Style Wars"

America and NATO will never see an uncontested battle field again , not after Ukrainian crisis

Anywhere the military goes, there will be competent and dangerous environments to operate

See Libya, CAR, Syria, Mali

Those are just examples of how American intervention will never be the same again - they will operate in contested environments and will have to manage their approach to combat with new solutions

The era of easy wars, are over

Arkanghelsk wrote:I don't think there will ever be more "American Style Wars"

America and NATO will never see an uncontested battle field again , not after Ukrainian crisis

Anywhere the military goes, there will be competent and dangerous environments to operate

See Libya,  CAR, Syria, Mali

Those are just examples of how American intervention will never be the same again - they will operate in contested environments and will have to manage their approach to combat with new solutions

The era of easy wars, are over

Russia needs to do to NATZO/America what the west are doing to them by arming there opponents and watch the bastards squeal, you reap what you sow, they wrongly accused Russia of arming the Taliban and EU rightly said there was no evidence, but the Americans still claim, they will know when Russia arms there opponents.

Metis, Konkurs and Faggots were way more effective in Syria and Yemen than the latest US supplied Tow Missiles to there Jihadi friends

ucmvulcan wrote:I won't write off the Bradley.  In American hands, fighting an American war (that to help our limey buddy who claims to simultaneously have been a tank commander and biochem warfare expert, that there smells of Brian Williams in an attack copter over Baghdad bs is a modified form of Deep Battle combined arms warfare), the Bradley is a very effective machine.  However, it has to fight an American war where it enjoys close air support, is used in combination with heavy tanks, and where it enjoys heavy artillery support and the enemy is mostly infantry using tanks made of low quality steel like the lion of Babylon.  In Ukraine it cannot fight an American war.  Even if the Seanpennwaffe ever gets a couple squadrons of patvhed up F-16 tampons Ukraine does not have any of the weaponry or training or leadership advantages the US enjoyed in Iraq.

Yes naturally its effective where the opposition is worse off than what 404 is at the moment. Even a Toyota with a zu-23/2 on the back is VERY effective in that type of situation, but when the roles are reversed its a whole different story as we can clearly see by the number of burning Bradleys (not to mention Leopards )

godric wrote:Russia needs to do to NATZO/America what the west are doing to them by arming there opponents and watch the bastards squeal, you reap what you sow, they wrongly accused Russia of arming the Taliban and EU rightly said there was no evidence, but the Americans still claim, they will know when Russia arms there opponents.

Revenge is a dish which is best cold