"Tankenstein Vehicles of the Russia Ukrainian War Part VI" Topic
22 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Profile Article The Editor is invited to tour the factory of Simtac, a U.S. manufacturer of figures in nearly all periods, scales, and genres.
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
 Editor in Chief Bill   | 22 Oct 2025 5:09 a.m. PST |
The sixth installment of vehicle modifications from the Russia Ukrainian War, this one focusses on the measures taken to protect vehicles from the ever-increasing drone threat… Inch High Guy: link |
79thPA  | 22 Oct 2025 6:07 a.m. PST |
|
| doomfire | 22 Oct 2025 6:11 a.m. PST |
Time for walking drones to scoot under those bird cages and explode. |
| OSCS74 | 22 Oct 2025 8:07 a.m. PST |
If I use pins for the porcupine hummer, blood will flow. |
 Legion 4 | 22 Oct 2025 9:19 a.m. PST |
Well as always … the cycle goes : Measure Countermeasure Counter-Countermeasure Repeat …
With the massive losses of Russian Armor, they have to find ways to increase survivability …
The Drone is the new big game hunter of the battlefield … They look like something 40K Orks would come up with … |
| Maggot | 22 Oct 2025 2:42 p.m. PST |
Yes, as far as these two combatants are concerned, are MBTs worth it anymore? Are they having any impact at all, or are they just mobile artillery pieces? If I'm thinking "future war" it seems the tank has much less role to play, but the infantryman remains "queen of the battlefield." An infantryman, with a good solid cross country truck (much cheaper than an IFV/APC), can move farthest the fastest, pack enough heat to down the mightiest tank or aircraft up to two-four miles out, can control land with drones and artillery for up to 20 miles in all directions with extreme precision fires…and drones are really just cheap recon and guided missiles…. The return of the truck motorized infantry battalion, with mass drone and artillery support?? If I"m a poorer nation, that's what I think I might concentrate on.. |
| JMcCarroll | 22 Oct 2025 2:55 p.m. PST |
Inch High Guy always has great pics! Thank you as always!! |
| Legion 4 | 22 Oct 2025 3:02 p.m. PST |
Well I think that MBTs become more like their original mission – Infantry Support, plus in modern warfare use of combined arms, deployed properly would make a big difference. As we saw the Russians really were not to good at combined arms maneuver warfare. Infantry will still need IFVs and APCs. For speed to work with MBTs and a modicum protection from small arms, shrapnel, etc. Trucks will still have their uses. But they are very fragile compared to AFVs, e.g. APCs and IFVs … The closer they get to the "front"/FEBA, etc. the more fragile they become … Drones will just become part of the combined arms team. And as usual. Anti-Drone tech will be introduced on the battlefield. As aircraft, AFVs, MGs did to the WWI battlefield. Tactics, etc. had to evolve as did/does the new tech … |
| Cuprum2 | 22 Oct 2025 9:37 p.m. PST |
Legion… The war you knew has changed. Now drones completely destroy any detected equipment within 20 kilometers of the front line. And they even attack individual soldiers. Do you understand what this means? You simply won't be able to concentrate tanks, artillery, or even large infantry forces for operations like in past wars. You even face enormous difficulties delivering ammunition and food to the front lines, evacuating the wounded, and rotating troops. Several pairs of drone operators, hidden among rubble or forests, face off against each other, making them very difficult to detect… According to Russian statistics, every moving object on the battlefield is now attacked, on average, by 15 drones in a single battle…
Modern warfare is pure hell. link |
 Dal Gavan | 23 Oct 2025 6:48 p.m. PST |
The war you knew has changed. Now drones completely destroy any detected equipment within 20 kilometers of the front line. And they even attack individual soldiers. Do you understand what this means? You simply won't be able to concentrate tanks, artillery, or even large infantry forces for operations like in past wars. So drones are the new machine guns, which will make it impossible for soldiers top move on the battlefield. I've heard it all before- how the deployment of ATGM meant the end of the tank in 1973? Or the development of AAM meant aircraft guns were obsolete? The theorists who believed tanks meant the end of troops digging in on a battlefield? The debate about precision missiles making artillery obsolete? That the development of bombs that could be dropped from aircraft made armies and navies obsolete? That bayonets are obsolete and haven't been used since WWI? As Legion says, someone will develop a counter measure for drones. Someone else will develop a counter measure for the drone counter measure, etc, etc. Tactics will be refined, as will operational planning and strategic planning. Then a new Wonder Weapon will appear and the same old claims will be made again. If all these wonder weapons worked as well as salesmen and chair-polishing theorists claimed they would work, Cuprum, we'd be back to the good old days of pointy sticks and clubs as the main battlefield weapons, or in a state of constant peace. |
| Cuprum2 | 23 Oct 2025 7:30 p.m. PST |
Well, the search for measures and countermeasures is actively underway, and very quickly, which we can observe, as they say, "live." I wasn't saying this is an absolute weapon; I was saying that it currently makes warfare using old methods impossible. Just as the machine gun completely changed the then-conventional methods of warfare… |
| Dal Gavan | 24 Oct 2025 4:08 a.m. PST |
I was saying that it currently makes warfare using old methods impossible. Just as the machine gun completely changed the then-conventional methods of warfare… I wouldn't say "impossible,", mate. More dangerous and difficult (at this time)- definitely. But in the end it will come down to risk assessments and what sort of damage a commander is willing to accept in order to achieve his mission objective. Which is how it has always been. I think the effect of MG has been over-rated. The use of bolt-action rifles had a bigger effect, just look at the influence of the Chassepot and Dreyse in the Franco-Prussian War. Then box magazines were coupled to the bolt-action rifles and really rang the big changes in, from tactics right through to the colour of field uniforms. |
| Legion 4 | 24 Oct 2025 6:39 a.m. PST |
Dal +1 What made e.g. MGs so effective was tactics did not evolve as quickly as the tech did … The MG didn't make Infantry ineffective … The musket was replaced by the higher tech of e.g. metal cartridges/breech loading/lever action and finally bolt-action rifles. Bolt Action was replaced semi-auto magazine fed rifles … Semi-auto selected fire rifles superseded by the Assault Rifle concept. What next … not sure … but I pretty sure it will be something even better. The same happened with muzzle loading FA replaced by breech loading. Again, Tank vs. AT Aircraft vs. AA So I'm pretty sure the anti-drone tech is being invented and evolving as I type this. But no matter what … the only way to fight modern warfare is combined arms mobile maneuver warfare. IF tactics/techniques/training DO NOT evolve along with the ever-advancing tech. We will see what happened to the Russian forces in Ukraine. Or even what we generally saw in a number of the Arab-Israeli Wars. E.g. '56, '67, '73 etc. Plus, the IDF's use of combined arms in Gaza i.e. fighting MOUT with insurgents … |
| Cuprum2 | 24 Oct 2025 7:34 a.m. PST |
Dal Gavan, I partially agree. But it was machine guns that forced troops to dig in. Which, in turn, led to the rise of heavy artillery, and then to the advent of tanks.
The blue stripe is the result of the IDF's advance in Gaza over two years. Judging by the map, the Russians turned out to be an order of magnitude more effective than the Israelis))) |
| Dal Gavan | 24 Oct 2025 11:26 a.m. PST |
But it was machine guns that forced troops to dig in. Reliable MG probably encouraged digging in, Cuprum, but the trend started before they were fielded. The latter stages of the US Civil War saw troops digging in as enthusiastically as the Western Front WWI troops. But even with longer lines of sight, and the same proportion of MG and artillery, mobile warfare continued in the Middle Eastern campaigns against Turkiye. So the larger armies and resultant troop densities probably had as much to do with the endless trenches as any weaponry innovations. What next … not sure … but I pretty sure it will be something even better. Phasers, beamers and death stars, mate?  The only future I'm sure of is one that includes taxes…. |
| Cuprum2 | 24 Oct 2025 5:28 p.m. PST |
Dal Gavan, you're right. A good example is the Russian Civil War. Where troop density was high, typical actions in the spirit of World War I could be observed (Kakhovka), but where troop density did not allow for the creation of a continuous defensive line, the fighting was reminiscent of the American Civil War and even Napoleonic wars (for example, repelling cavalry charges by infantry formed in squares). |
| Maggot | 25 Oct 2025 6:22 a.m. PST |
Hence why all this leads to battlemechs dominating the battlefield; hear me out:
1. cheap drones kill expensive tanks…
2. cheap infantryman with shotgun kills drone (sometimes :))
3. cheap infantryman is relatively easy to kill, needs more armor…
4. armor is heavy, need a motorized skeletal frame to strap onto infantryman…
5. chair bound general realizes skeletal frame can carry more stuff…
6. strap a javelin and a .50 cal on that frame…
7. frame is a little too slow, make it bigger…
8. bigger you say? How about a 120mm cannon on that arm…
9. bam…infantryman becomes battlemech pilot…rules the battlefield, no more jokes about Battletech… :^)) |
| Legion 4 | 25 Oct 2025 7:23 p.m. PST |
The blue stripe is the result of the IDF's advance in Gaza over two years. Judging by the map, the Russians turned out to be an order of magnitude more effective than the Israelis))) Gaza vs. Ukraine is two different situations and two different types of terrain. Gaza was an urban insurgency, the IDF was moving methodically, etc. If trained in MOUT you know you just don't go running around in urban terrain. It is not blitzkrieg. E.g. the invasion of France in 1940. Plus the IDF was trying to rescue hostages. That type of operation is generally very methodical, deliberate, circumspect etc. With one of the final phases being freeing the hostages from their captors. E.g. SAS assault on the Iranian Embassy, 1980 … link Ukraine was/is primarily conventional combined arms modern mobile maneuver warfare. Which is different than an insurgency fought in urban terrain. The IDF knew how to fight an urban insurgency. Verses how the Russians operated in Ukraine. Again, today another US Army GEN ret. mentioned how poorly the Russians did from Day 1. Because of lack or training, leadership, log support low motivation/morale, etc. Again, summing it up as far too many loses for very, very few gains.
The latter stages of the US Civil War saw troops digging in as enthusiastically as the Western Front WWI troops. Yes that is exactly right. A precursor to future wars … Dal +1 Maggot +1
I think you are on to something there … |
| Cuprum2 | 28 Oct 2025 2:47 a.m. PST |
Legion 4, the Russians have taken numerous cities since the beginning of the war (Mariupol, Bakhmut, etc.). They're excellent at urban assaults. Better than anyone else. Yes, we saw what Gaza turned into during the Israelis' "cautious war".
|
| Legion 4 | 28 Oct 2025 12:11 p.m. PST |
Again, look at the map … At best the Russians took maybe 20% of Ukraine. Much of that took at least two years. At some very high losses. Again, I'll listen to US Ret. Officers' comments, etc. over anything any Russian would say. They're excellent at urban assaults. Better than anyone else. Who ? Not the Russians … Yes, we saw what Gaza turned into during the Israelis' "cautious war". I didn't say "cautious" … you did … I said, methodical, deliberate, circumspect etc. And yes, using FA, gunships, CAS, etc. to prep an area and in direct support to an attack. This is how MOUT is done. It is generally SOP – to prep a target before an assault. In MOUT that may be the next building across the street. The IDF didn't just run around in Gaza without recon, prep fires and supporting fires generally. And yes, that photo you posted is what happens generally in MOUT. You have to remember the IDF was not only looking for their hostages. But payback for 7 Oct … And they also knew based on the past dealing will Hamas and other jihadis. They may have to be eliminated to almost a man along with their supporters. As we see now, Hamas is not keeping to the plan/the deal to end the killing. They are radical islmaists … they don't care about how many die. |
| Maggot | 28 Oct 2025 6:05 p.m. PST |
L4
I think the fighting in Gaza, and in the Middle East in general, versus radical Islamic forces is much like Vietnam-they are willing to fight to the last of "their" people (well except for a 1% of filthy rich Hamas leaders who've stolen billions in Western aid to live lives of luxury while 99% of Gazans live in perpetual poverty). Islamic radicalism has a apocalyptic mentality; it's the major difference between them and the Israeli forces. I saw an article in an English language Indian paper that the IDF may have taken almost 3-4K casualties (with over 1000 deaths) in the last two years of fighting. That's the "ratio" equivalent of 70-80K Americans. If accurate, it goes to show how harsh the fighting is there. The other thing to remember is that some conservative Israelis want the idea of Gaza, and their people, gone from their borders. After 80 years of dealing with an ever growing population living (undercutting the lie of "genocide") in virtual dystopian religious slavery on their doorstep, I think they were hoping for a movement to push that population somewhere else: Africa, South America, other Islamic countries. Unless Gaza gets an "MacArthur" style remake, ala Japan after WW2, the cycle will just restart in a few more years… But back on topic: where are those Ukrainian Longbow battlemechs at yet? |
| Legion 4 | 28 Oct 2025 8:04 p.m. PST |
Agree with you Maggot. And yes, the VC/NVA were not going anywhere. And they were willing to take heavy losses. Knowing like the French the US would get tired of losing all that blood and treasure. And go home. The VC/NVA didn't have win they just didn't lose. They were playing the long game … If those casualty rates from Gaza is correct, yes it does show how tough it is to fight an urban insurgency. Along with the insurgents are islamic fanatics. That is a very difficult mission. Yep Isreal has been dealing with islamic forces/terrorists since their inception. Hamas/the Palestinians are not going anywhere. Save for they believe if they are martyred fighting infidels they go to paradise. With the IDF having to go on the offensive again to cleanse Gaza from the Hamas, etc. May be a good option. To try to kill off all the fanatics of the death cults there. But if there is no successful leadership, etc. in Gaza. They will start up again. I think the Ukrainians wouldn't mind some Mechs.🤖 They could move on Moscow destroying everything in their path. Then chase Putin around Red Square ! Until he drops ! 😎🤩 |
|
