"What NATO Is Learning in Helping Ukraine to Fight" Topic

"NATO allies are likely to invest in air defense capabilities and deeper stocks of ammunition in the coming years in response to lessons it learned from Russia's war in Ukraine, the alliance's military chief said.

Russia's invasion shows the North Atlantic Treaty Organization needs to be prepared to fight World War One-style trench warfare and artillery barrages, while at the same time countering attacks and surveillance from armed drones, the chairman of the alliance's military committee, Admiral Rob Bauer, said in an interview with Bloomberg News…"

Main page

link

Armand

Not sure about the logic there.

Drones are a big thing, the British army taught the Ukrainians their drone FO techniques. Not sure we have a counter.
AAA seems to be the thing.

More AA missiles seem like a good idea to take out helicopters and planes.

Not so sure about trench warfare.

I can imagine the superior quality NATO combined arms would likely go through Russian forces like a hot knife through butter.

I doubt any NATO countries need to fear the beast from the east for a while. It's tied down and bleeding.

Like all wars lessons are being learned. And yes Drones have been a bit of a game changer. We see with more accurate and destructive FA, trenches may be a good "defense".

Plus, yes, it seems with the poor Russian performance, inability to fight modern warfare, poor troop and leadership quality, etc. I do believe NATO would destroy the Russians Forces and very soundly. The important thing not to attack Mother Russian's land. That may result in a rising of patriotic motivation, etc. Of course, the US/NATO/Ukraine have made it clear there will be no drive on Moscow.

The US/NATO mission is to push the Russians off Ukrainian soil. Putin et al probably know that.

This war has been interesting. For many years I would have said that a near peer conflict in today's age would be short and brutal. Losses massive and un-replaceable in the time frame needed to matter. Entire armies smashed in weeks (like Iraq 1991 and 2001). Countries conquered or destroyed (the best evidence we have of Soviet war plans in Germany required, nay, relied on, tactical nukes thrown around like candy).

But this war has proven that false; or has it?
Russian is not the USSR, but I believe the USSR was never the real threat it was made out to be….see Afghanistan and how it crushed the Soviet economy and military.

The Russians have shown themselves the height of military incompetence, time and time again, even when they succeed. Trench warfare, drone recon, mass AFV losses, but replaced from stocks, who would have guessed?

Are drones that big of a game changer? Yes and no. The West, and particular the US, now have drones at the squad level as standard TO&E. Anti-drone tech and weapons are being perfected using intel from Ukraine-hence another level of rock-paper-scissors is quickly being leveled out again. AFVs are still viable, and the Ukrainians are screaming for them…any AFV…hence clearly they still think they are useful. Do they need to be 70 ton behemoths, or do cheaper light vehicles that protect against light common weapons, used as support weapons with the dismount infantry as the forward punch, such as what France fields, just as valuable, particularly noting the effectiveness of LAWs and ATCMs these days. IE, a light vehicle used in the support by fire role, if killed by a LAW, not as big of a loss, and at least it got the INF squad to the battlefield relatively safe.

In the end, the west does not want Ukraine to win fast…that much is plainly obvious. The West's, particularly the US' wet dream of a humbled USSR/Russia is now real, so drag that stuff out as long as possible, and even better, use Ukraine's youth to do it!

tactical nukes thrown around like candy

Nukes tac or otherwise is a one way trip. Unless you are islamic jihadi/ terrorist. No one wants to use nuke. The US, Europe, Russia, etc. want to live. We are not going to die on jihad.

The Russians have shown themselves the height of military incompetence, time and time again, even when they succeed. Trench warfare, drone recon, mass AFV losses, but replaced from stocks, who would have guessed?

All true … I can't think of anymore incompetent military than Russians save for some Mid-East and African.

Trenches became back in style because of the massive use of FA especially by the Russians. They can't fight the Ukraine toe-to-toe. So, it is their only game. They are a one trick pony. FA today like many other things on the battlefield, it is more deadly than ever before. Add to that the Russians care little about CD. It's part of their plan.

Massive AFV losses is because the Russians don't know how to fight Combined Arms. Plus modern AT weapons, especially man packed are very deadly. E.g. the US Javelin, etc.

On the offensive with all the deadly weapons on the battlefield. Even using Combined Arms, AFVs will take losses. Even when fighting 2d rate troops like the Russian. And yes, stocks of everything will have to be replaced as again modern weapons are very deadly.

Drones are a game changer, both for recon and strike. And this type of tech will continue to advance. And will be part of the Combined Arms Tm. They are really another form of air assets.

Anti-drone tech and weapons are being perfected using intel from Ukraine-hence another level of rock-paper-scissors is quickly being leveled out again.

As always, e.g. with the introduction of Tanks & Airpower. It is Measure – Counter Measure – Counter-Counter-Measure … repeat.

AFVs are still viable, and the Ukrainians are screaming for them…any AFV…hence clearly they still think they are useful. Do they need to be 70 ton behemoths, or do cheaper light vehicles that protect against light common weapons

Yes AFVs are still very useful. They just have to be used correctly, i.e.: Combined Arms. Heavier MBTs have their uses again as part of the Combined Arms Tm. But that team has to include Infantry in IFVs/APCs, etc. Along with FA, CAS, Gunships, CEs, etc. Light AFVs are a bit more vulnerable, but they have to be used properly, as well.

used as support weapons with the dismount infantry as the forward punch,

Infantry does its best "work" dismounted. And yes, weapons system provide support by fire. But dismounted Infantry alone will never have the firepower MBTs. Even with IFVs in support. In Iraq, the M2 Bradley's TOWs killed more AFVs than MBTs.

I was a Rifle Plt Ldr in the 101, then later was an M113 Mech Co Cdr. So I do have the training and experience to work with Infantry dismounted & mounted. I see the uses of both types, Light & Mech. Based on terrain & situation, etc. Even as a Mech Co. Cdr we'd always dismounted based on the situation, etc. But as a Grunt you always want FA and MBT support. Infantry and Armor would cross-attach Plts/Cos. Again, part of the US Air-Land Battle doctrine/modern maneuver mobile combined arms warfare.

IE, a light vehicle used in the support by fire role, if killed by a LAW, not as big of a loss, and at least it got the INF squad to the battlefield relatively safe.

Nope … you don't want to lose your mobility. Then you can only move as fast as you can walk. Unless you can catch a ride on the back deck of some MBTs, AFVs, etc. We actually trained for that in Light Infantry Officer Training. If you are lucky, you may get assault helicopter support to take you near your next mission/objective. With Gunship support …

In the end, the west does not want Ukraine to win fast…that much is plainly obvious. The West's, particularly the US' wet dream of a humbled USSR/Russia is now real, so drag that stuff out as long as possible, and even better, use Ukraine's youth to do it!

I don't completely agree with that. The Russians need to learn/know they can't invade neighboring nations. And even commit war crimes as well. It is the 21st Century in Europe. This imperialism can't be allowed or go unpunished.

I hope the US and NATO support the Ukraine with all they need. I don't think we want to make the war last any longer than it has to. The Russians have taken huge losses in men & material. At the hands of the Ukrainians. With NATO, etc. support which has to continue.

I think we have a leadership problem in the USA. We need strong decisive leadership to get all of NATO, etc. supporting Ukraine and in many cases they are. But we have to lead from the front. We don't have that caliber of leadership at high levels today to do that, IMO. And yes, let the Ukrainians do the fighting. It's their land, it's their backyard. And the US/NATO, etc. can give them all the support they need.

Errata: "But dismounted Infantry alone will never have the firepower MBTs." Should read – But dismounted Infantry alone will never have the firepower of MBTs.