History in the Making: Russian Invasion

I ran across something that might be interesting to this subject, since we sort of discussed in a bit previously.  The concept of tanks having active defense against anti-tank missile.  There was a video released by Hamas showing them attacking an IDF Merkava tank with what looks like an a modern RPG.  The tank is moving along rather quickly (maybe 30+MPH) and is shot at from a 3/4 front angle at rather close range.  There is a large explosion and it looks like the tank is done for.   Slowing down the video though, clearly shows the tank moving out of frame seemingly unharmed (pic of point of explosion shown below).

What this likely is is an example of what the Isreali's call the Trophy System.    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure).  It's an active, automatic system that detects missile threats and (if it is projected to hit the tank) will fire a shotgun like device at the missile to set it off before it hits the tank.  It's rather crazy how it works, but it apparently does!  It also of course lets the crew know about the detection and it's location as well as sharing it with nearby vehicles.

It also, of course, can be defeated.  Firing multiple missiles at the same time will likely overwhelm it.  Drones will likely not set it off and kinetic rounds (e.g. tank rounds) cannot be countered (though there might be an upgrade that does that).

Anyway, some crazy technology.

The US is apparently using this system also, but are trying to develop their own.

Here is the system on a Merkava tank.  Radar / sensor to the left and the launcher (which obviously needs to very quickly swivel) is covered.

Here is a link to the actual video.  Not sure this link will work, it's from Telegram:  https://t.me/NewsWorld_23/3209

I just remembered I've got a second edition copy of "How to Make War" by Jim Dunnigan around somewhere.  It might be a good time to re-read that... 

In reply to aircooled :

i recently applied for a job as a test engineer for very similar system.  imagine getting paid to blow E36 M3 up on that scale!

A good summary of the summer offensive and the current state of the war from our favorite Austrian, including an analysis as to why the offensive faltered (not a huge surprise, lack of air power, or ability to heavily bombard the defenses).  There is also a slightly onimous assessment of the drone situation.

aircooled said:

I There was a video released by Hamas showing them attacking an IDF Merkava tank with what looks like an a modern RPG.  The tank is moving along rather quickly (maybe 30+MPH) and is shot at from a 3/4 front angle at rather close range.  There is a large explosion and it looks like the tank is done for.   Slowing down the video though, clearly shows the tank moving out of frame seemingly unharmed (pic of point of explosion shown below).

IMO, You don't actually see Trophy engage this particular RPG, and I suspect the shot was within the minimum range.  The Merkava is also an APC with an infantry compartment at the rear, while the engine is in the front.  A hit on the rear 1/3 of the tank like that wouldn't disable it, but anyone riding in the back is having a bad day if the hull is penetrated.

When Trophy fires to engage a projectile it produces a small explosion, which we would have seen on the top of the turret.


Either way, a tank going 30mph is not going to instantly stop like a video game.

I was reading an article about Saddam Hussein and it reminded me of what a sh-t show the ousting of him turned out to be. How often -  particularly after WWll we've played the part of baby Huey, stumbling around, breaking things  and pissing the world off while upsetting the balance of power. 

As our support in Ukraine recedes somewhat , I also think of all the people and nations whom we've let down as the political winds change. In this Christmas season I pray for the people of Ukraine. May they not be another roadkill of our "enlightened" age.

At least, in this case, the US did not stir the crap up to begin with then walk away (ignoring any role we played in allowing  this situation to develop of course).

I still say, support for Ukraine, is some of the most productive defense spending the US has ever done. Huge (pardon the expression) bang for the buck compared to typical defense spending, which typically result in no tangible results (not that it does not have a very useful affect or use in many cases)

The primary issue really, as I see it, is the standard US defense spending is still in place, rather than this replacing it.

In reference to negotiations.  Again, it's Russia.... 

Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov explicitly stated that the Kremlin is uninterested in negotiations with Ukraine, suggesting that the Kremlin is moving away from its information operation meant to feign interest in negotiations. Peskov responded to a question on December 20 about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s December 19 statement that the issue of negotiations with Russia is currently “irrelevant,” stating that the Kremlin has repeatedly said that there is no “basis” or “foundation” for negotiations with Ukraine.[6] Peskov also stated that the “prerequisites” for negotiations are absent, likely referring to Russia‘s unchanged maximalist objectives in Ukraine - which are tantamount to full Ukrainian and Western surrender.[7] ISW has long assessed that the Kremlin does not intend to engage in serious negotiations with Ukraine or the West in good faith.[8] The Kremlin previously pushed information operations feigning interest in negotiations with Ukraine in order to cast itself as a responsible party and blame Ukraine for refusing “reasonable” Russian negotiations, but the Kremlin appears to be moving away from this information operation, as ISW suggested on December 15.[9]

aircooled said:

I still say, support for Ukraine, is some of the most productive defense spending the US has ever done. Huge (pardon the expression) bang for the buck compared to typical defense spending, which typically result in no tangible results (not that it does not have a very useful affect or use in many cases)

If you want to see the continuation of the US Global Empire I would agree with this statement. I think many people are tiring of the Empire as a whole, and it's costs, and because of the current geopolitical climate the changing tides are going to be very hard on Ukraine

In reply to aircooled :

I'm basically on the same page as you, but if Russia outlasts our willingness to spend money on Ukraine, it could be yet another fiasco. And I just have so little faith in our government's ability to consistently do the right thing.  

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

I mean, it started as a fiasco.  The worst we can do it let it finish itself.  I guess you could say, we never should have committed to it if we did not intend to follow through to the end.  Sort of like saving an old lady from getting hit in the street, only to walk her to the middle of the street and leave her there.  I mean you did save her... initially.

Opti said:

aircooled said:

I still say, support for Ukraine, is some of the most productive defense spending the US has ever done. Huge (pardon the expression) bang for the buck compared to typical defense spending, which typically result in no tangible results (not that it does not have a very useful affect or use in many cases)

If you want to see the continuation of the US Global Empire I would agree with this statement. I think many people are tiring of the Empire as a whole, and it's costs, and because of the current geopolitical climate the changing tides are going to be very hard on Ukraine

Hmmm, I would say almost the opposite really.  The US spending in Ukraine is primarily to stop the Russians from developing a Global Empire (by force).  It certainly has the potential to help the US on the world stage, but I would not say that is the primary goal or purpose.

If you say, for example, the US should not be the police force of the world, I would tend to agree, with the caviet of the fact that if the US is not the police, the potential replacements (e.g. China) have a large potential for being far less "reasonable".  I would honestly prefer that the US is the police force, but we actually get paid to do the job. The security the US provides certainly has a lot of benefit to the US (moneterily and otherwise) though of course.

aircooled said:

In reference to negotiations.  Again, it's Russia.... 

Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov explicitly stated that the Kremlin is uninterested in negotiations with Ukraine, suggesting that the Kremlin is moving away from its information operation meant to feign interest in negotiations. Peskov responded to a question on December 20 about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s December 19 statement that the issue of negotiations with Russia is currently “irrelevant,” stating that the Kremlin has repeatedly said that there is no “basis” or “foundation” for negotiations with Ukraine.[6] Peskov also stated that the “prerequisites” for negotiations are absent, likely referring to Russia‘s unchanged maximalist objectives in Ukraine - which are tantamount to full Ukrainian and Western surrender.[7] ISW has long assessed that the Kremlin does not intend to engage in serious negotiations with Ukraine or the West in good faith.[8] The Kremlin previously pushed information operations feigning interest in negotiations with Ukraine in order to cast itself as a responsible party and blame Ukraine for refusing “reasonable” Russian negotiations, but the Kremlin appears to be moving away from this information operation, as ISW suggested on December 15.[9]

Real negotiations never take place in the public eye. While I think there is some truth to the idea that Russia is manipulating public opinion by dangling the prospect of talks when it's convenient, I also think that if they got a real proposal that offered the possibility of allowing them to achieve some, but not all, of their objectives, they'd jump (quietly) at the chance. It may not be costing them as much as some might hope, but the war is a drain on the country, and not sustainable forever.

Big news on the air war front - looks like Ukraine shot down 3 Su-34s.  These were some of the planes dropping glide bombs from behind the front lines.  

eastsideTim said:

Big news on the air war front - looks like Ukraine shot down 3 Su-34s.  These were some of the planes dropping glide bombs from behind the front lines.  

Interesting.  Can that be confirmed or is everybody quoting each other.  Although the Russian relative silence on the matter makes one wonder.

Noddaz said:

eastsideTim said:

Big news on the air war front - looks like Ukraine shot down 3 Su-34s.  These were some of the planes dropping glide bombs from behind the front lines.  

Interesting.  Can that be confirmed or is everybody quoting each other.  Although the Russian relative silence on the matter makes one wonder.

 

Seems like multiple Ukrainian sources, but the only reference I've heard from the Russians is one of their war bloggers confirmed a search and rescue was happening for a downed pilot.  

aircooled said:

Opti said:

aircooled said:

I still say, support for Ukraine, is some of the most productive defense spending the US has ever done. Huge (pardon the expression) bang for the buck compared to typical defense spending, which typically result in no tangible results (not that it does not have a very useful affect or use in many cases)

If you want to see the continuation of the US Global Empire I would agree with this statement. I think many people are tiring of the Empire as a whole, and it's costs, and because of the current geopolitical climate the changing tides are going to be very hard on Ukraine

Hmmm, I would say almost the opposite really.  The US spending in Ukraine is primarily to stop the Russians from developing a Global Empire (by force).  It certainly has the potential to help the US on the world stage, but I would not say that is the primary goal or purpose.

If you say, for example, the US should not be the police force of the world, I would tend to agree, with the caviet of the fact that if the US is not the police, the potential replacements (e.g. China) have a large potential for being far less "reasonable".  I would honestly prefer that the US is the police force, but we actually get paid to do the job. The security the US provides certainly has a lot of benefit to the US (moneterily and otherwise) though of course.

I wasn't trying to state my specific opinion on the US Empire, which I have a very strong one, just that in general many people are tiring of it, and at least partially causing the changing political winds.

You are correct that the USs primary goal is to weaken and isolate Russia, which US officials have said publicly. I said this is a continuation of the US Empire because I believe they want to weaken Russia to prevent a threat to the US being the global hegemony, which is essentially the same thing you said.

Id enjoy a debate on the US Empire, as Americans have undoubtedly benefited from it, but it isn't without its costs. I was just saying your statement is the "pro statement" from the continuing the US empire position but political winds are changing, meaning it's not a good thing from many Americans perspective anymore.

Apparently in the Kherson area where the Russians have been using glide bombs extensively.  Their versions are not terribly accurate, but they have been using them a lot there!

Rumor is they moved a Patriot system there.  That would do it!

The question is, will the Russians risk any more attacks?  The Patriots are very expensive to shoot, but no where near the cost of an SU-34!  I am wondering if they might try another hypersonic missile attacks.  They aren't terribly accurate either apparently, and it didn't go well last time, but I think that was against two Patriots.
 

aircooled said:

...  The Patriots are very expensive to shoot, but no where near the cost of an SU-34!  I am wondering if they might try another hypersonic missile attacks.  They aren't terribly accurate either apparently, and it didn't go well last time, but I think that was against two Patriots.

Earlier in the war it seemed like the Ukrainians had no care for the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the munitions they used. I expect that is changing now.

Yeah, the cost trade off issues, especially with drones, is a big issue.

Indications the Ukrainians have done a fairly significant drone wave to the north (maybe using their new drones?).

There is some worry on the Russian side that the SU-34 shoot downs was friendly fire.  Something about a Ukrainian Mig-29 painting targets for Ukrainian air defense.  Who knows.  Definitely shot down though.

Slightly coincidentally:

In reply to Opti :

Yeah, I was just thrown a bit by the use of "empire", which is certainly a bit strong.  Even hegemony is maybe an overstatement(?).  Maybe something like Global Influence / Control? (which is essentially hegemony)  Not sure there is a term for what the US's situation in the world is now.  World Police almost works.     ("America, f-yeah" )

I think the push back within the US population to whatever you would call it though has been certainly going on, and building for a while.  Vietnam would obviously be a point of growth.  Those in power (here and otherwise) certainly seem interesting in keeping it going though.  I don't really see it as being entirely selfish, but I am sure there is some of that (throw all sorts of conspiracy type Illuminati theories in here)

I would be curious as to what term O2 would use to describe the US's situation in the scheme of world power.  (seems like it enters into his area of expertise)

For curiosity sake, here is the range of the PAC-2 Patriot missile when placed near in the Kherson area.  The Russian glide bombs likely have a range of around 50km and for that they have to be dropped from a rather high altitude, which makes them VERY visible and vulnerable to air defense within range, especially something as powerful as a Patriot.

aircooled said:

In reply to Opti :

Yeah, I was just thrown a bit by the use of "empire", which is certainly a bit strong.  Even hegemony is maybe an overstatement(?).  Maybe something like Global Influence / Control? (which is essentially hegemony)  Not sure there is a term for what the US's situation in the world is now.  World Police almost works.     ("America, f-yeah" )

I think the push back within the US population to whatever you would call it though has been certainly going on, and building for a while.  Vietnam would obviously be a point of growth.  Those in power (here and otherwise) certainly seem interesting in keeping it going though.  I don't really see it as being entirely selfish, but I am sure there is some of that (throw all sorts of conspiracy type Illuminati theories in here)

I would be curious as to what term O2 would use to describe the US's situation in the scheme of world power.  (seems like it enters into his area of expertise)

The US is unquestionably a regional (Western Hemisphere) hegemon. Globally, among the Great Powers (those states which, as peer competitors, are sufficiently powerful as alone to threaten the balance of power), it is first among equals, having greater resources to employ than any other state. When dealing with smaller, non-peer competitor, states, the US, like all Great Powers, pursues its interests to the extent of its resources and the depth of its interests, on a case-by-case basis; there is a wide range of interpretation here, and decision-makers may be operating under different criteria and assumptions than the average American. Some of this may seem "imperial" behavior, but I don't know that use of that pejorative (in the modern era, anyway) term is especially helpful in understanding US decisions and actions.

In reply to 02Pilot :

thank you.

02Pilot said:

aircooled said:

In reply to Opti :

Yeah, I was just thrown a bit by the use of "empire", which is certainly a bit strong.  Even hegemony is maybe an overstatement(?).  Maybe something like Global Influence / Control? (which is essentially hegemony)  Not sure there is a term for what the US's situation in the world is now.  World Police almost works.     ("America, f-yeah" )

I think the push back within the US population to whatever you would call it though has been certainly going on, and building for a while.  Vietnam would obviously be a point of growth.  Those in power (here and otherwise) certainly seem interesting in keeping it going though.  I don't really see it as being entirely selfish, but I am sure there is some of that (throw all sorts of conspiracy type Illuminati theories in here)

I would be curious as to what term O2 would use to describe the US's situation in the scheme of world power.  (seems like it enters into his area of expertise)

The US is unquestionably a regional (Western Hemisphere) hegemon. Globally, among the Great Powers (those states which, as peer competitors, are sufficiently powerful as alone to threaten the balance of power), it is first among equals, having greater resources to employ than any other state. When dealing with smaller, non-peer competitor, states, the US, like all Great Powers, pursues its interests to the extent of its resources and the depth of its interests, on a case-by-case basis; there is a wide range of interpretation here, and decision-makers may be operating under different criteria and assumptions than the average American. Some of this may seem "imperial" behavior, but I don't know that use of that pejorative (in the modern era, anyway) term is especially helpful in understanding US decisions and actions.

First it's hard for me not to consider the USA a global empire when you consider a couple things. We have military bases in about half of ALL other countries, we spend more on our military, by a massive margin, than anybody else (in fact the margin alone is so big it's about double the next largest spender, who is 4x the next one. For perspective, of ALL the military spending worldwide for ALL 195 countries and ~7 billion people, great than one of every 3 dollars is spent by the US and our 335M people) , we control/protect global sea trade with our military might, and we force the rest of the world to trade oil in our currency under threat of military or economic might, then use that to prop up our currency.

I don't care that Imperial and Empire have become pejoratives, because if you are capable of taking a critical look at what's going on, its clear that as time passes history will consider the USA an empire, just like all the ones it succeeded. I think i conveyed a relatively simple concept between the opposing forces in this country regardless of whether people think it's mean to describe our actions accurately.

I know you didn't endorse it, just stated how it is, but more people should be upset with the accurate line about "decision makers working under different assumptions and criteria than the average American." It's literally antithetical to first principles of this country.

Public appetite for the cost of the US Empire is fading, even though most people have no idea what it actually costs or benefits them, this is why support for Ukraine is fading.