The War in the Ukraine

Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
Also, personal opinion - something has to be done with ABVs.
They're vehicles leading the assaults - i.e. not "just" combat vehicles, but also the leading and the most crucial ones.
If they fail - the whole assault at best fails.

1. Tanks with plows aren't a replacement - with heavy plows, they're almost incapable of maneuvering(so they can't even be a backup), light ones are for show secondary. So, a purpose-designed assault vehicle. People who suggest doing it with ARVs shall go first to show with the example...no simply wrong, ARVs are far too valuable to an armoured unit to waste, even to make a point.
2. ABV is a target no.1 - from both the front, sides and top - smart mines do it, ATGMs do it. Heavy Composite/ERA cover instead of those weaker superstructures must be provided. And yes, of course, APS - in a survivable installation. Leopard 2a8 solution is a joke.
3. ABV must carry flexible charges(like M1150 does). Russian idea of carrying those on separate lightly armoured deathtraps is ...well, at least, they shouldn't be the only solution. Btw, China does the same, and it's something to consider.
abv_assault_breacher_vehicle_heavy_engineer_armoured_vehicle_tank_United_States_US_Army_american_925_DVIDS_002.jpg
4. ABV must be capable of suppressing defenses at meaningful ranges. If anything, because it itself blocks fire of the armoured column it leads. Most of them, instead, are either completely unarmed, or have a MG only.
Maybe something like the Soviet Object 787 installation(guns on turret sides).
_0A7A14451111.jpg
5. Heavy roller plows with side attack mine sweeping add-on (Russian style) - is a must.

Short point: ABV is the tip of the armored spear, not a glorified dozer.
 
Last edited:
sheogorath

sheogorath

Major
Registered Member
Gloire_bb said:
Maybe something like the Soviet Object 787 installation(guns on turret sides).
Click to expand...

The BMPT could be a decent engineering vehicle, then. High turret unmanned turret that can fire above the plow, could replace the ATGM's on the side with mine clearing charges, something like that.

Edit

Seems they lost al 3 Leopard 2R in the same spot, actually

photo1686530047.jpeg
 
Last edited:
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
I previously read this from one of the Russian Telegram channels but it hasn't gotten attention. The two Grom missiles could be intercepted by S-300V or S-400. Crimea should also have one or two S-350 systems.


Spetsnaz allegedly may have captured some Black Hornet drones. If true this can be a huge intel bonanza.


Another version of a previously posted video, this time with more run time enabling us to see the details. I can see three tanks and one BMP, instead of four tanks. This action takes place around the Bakhmut sector. The vehicles were in a column as they advanced and fired

An RPG(?) managed to hit the first tank, probably at the tracks. The tank survived but it seems to have problems moving. It backed up and collided with the second tank. Just then the third tank went up, not sure if it's another RPG or an ATGM. Later the APC and one tank tried to leave, leaving two tanks abandoned.

 
Last edited:
A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
Gloire_bb said:
Also, personal opinion - something has to be done with ABVs.
They're vehicles leading the assaults - i.e. not "just" combat vehicles, but also the leading and the most crucial ones.
If they fail - the whole assault at best fails.

1. Tanks with plows aren't a replacement - with heavy plows, they're almost incapable of maneuvering(so they can't even be a backup), light ones are for show secondary. So, a purpose-designed assault vehicle. People who suggest doing it with ARVs shall go first to show with the example...no simply wrong, ARVs are far too valuable to an armoured unit to waste, even to make a point.
2. ABV is a target no.1 - from both the front, sides and top - smart mines do it, ATGMs do it. Heavy Composite/ERA cover instead of those weaker superstructures must be provided. And yes, of course, APS - in a survivable installation. Leopard 2a8 solution is a joke.
3. ABV must carry flexible charges(like M1150 does). Russian idea of carrying those on separate lightly armoured deathtraps is ...well, at least, they shouldn't be the only solution. Btw, China does the same, and it's something to consider.


4. ABV must be capable of suppressing defenses at meaningful ranges. If anything, because it itself blocks fire of the armoured column it leads. Most of them, instead, are either completely unarmed, or have a MG only.
Maybe something like the Soviet Object 787 installation(guns on turret sides).

5. Heavy roller plows with side attack mine sweeping add-on (Russian style) - is a must.

Short point: ABV is the tip of the armored spear, not a glorified dozer.
Click to expand...

Problem is in the mind of the designers the ABVs come in picture when the air force ,artirelly or starvation make safe enoguth the area.

In that case the vehicles needs to clear ONLY the mines, doesn't supress enemy fire, survive ATGMs and so on.

If there is no way to clear the area from enemy units "remotely", then no vehicle will sruvive the zone.

Only solution is to make cheap , heavy unmanned vehicles, and swarm the area with them . Observe them from drones, map the enemy frtifications and establish safe, already passed paths on the minefield.

So, ther is no cheap, fast solution, only slow and methodical.

Require organisation and adaptation from the low level users.

Like as the Russians did with the remote controled BMPs around uledar ,after faced the same failure.
 
Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
I don't see a point in making it remote-controlled. If you create a path for a manned assault team from the breacher - removing engineers away (which will still come at the expense of efficiency) will basically increase the risk for other - less protected, stuffed with dismounts - crewed vehicles.

Suicide-breaching and/or performing especially dangerous tasks with RCV will work(and is known since WW2), but leading the assault for now is a task for either a manned crewed vehicle, of a mix of manned and and empty vehicles for redundancy. It's especially true since such minefield assaults are often taken for surprise value - preemptive mine-clearing efforts are visible, especially now with all those IR drones in the air.

Also, i am of opinion that this vehicle must be fully armed - because it by its nature blocks field of fire of the following vehicles. At early stages of assault - more so, the closer the assault comes to its goal - the less(basic geometry), but the higher the requirement for suppression fire.
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Feels a little off topic, but frankly I think it’s pretty damning of how major militaries have taken their eyes off the ball when it comes to de-mining work that no one has developed and fielded an air deployable mine clearing line charge (MCLC).

It can’t be some insurmountable engineering challenge to integrate a MCLC with a flying munitions dispenser so you basically fly a number of those over a minefield and they just deploy enough MCLCs to punch a path through a minefield so your mechanised units can race through at full speed instead of crawling along at the speed of the ABV. If timed well, the massive dust cloud from the MCLC detonations might also serve as an effective smokescreen for the attackers.

This is the sort of thing you would expect a bunch of engineering undergrads to be able to mock up as their final year project since all the major components are basically off-the-shelf items.
 
R

Right_People

Junior Member
Registered Member
plawolf said:
Feels a little off topic, but frankly I think it’s pretty damning of how major militaries have taken their eyes off the ball when it comes to de-mining work that no one has developed and fielded an air deployable mine clearing line charge (MCLC).

It can’t be some insurmountable engineering challenge to integrate a MCLC with a flying munitions dispenser so you basically fly a number of those over a minefield and they just deploy enough MCLCs to punch a path through a minefield so your mechanised units can race through at full speed instead of crawling along at the speed of the ABV. If timed well, the massive dust cloud from the MCLC detonations might also serve as an effective smokescreen for the attackers.

This is the sort of thing you would expect a bunch of engineering undergrads to be able to mock up as their final year project since all the major components are basically off-the-shelf items.
Click to expand...
What about small RC vehicles, even toy ones with some metal detector, to clear something as cheap and numerous as mines you need to go cheap and numerous as well, maybe aerial drones that go mine by mine destroying it with a charge ...

If you go heavy and expensive, once you lose that machine you are in trouble, even if the AFU don't lose their Leos, the amount of clearance vehicles already lost greatly limits the combat potential of the rest of the army.

3 demining vehicles lost for such a small column is simply not sustainable ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top