Is Putin Playing Possum?

[MeDotOrg]

Another thing about Russia's heavy losses, imagine if their equipment was in good shape and they had proper leadership and experienced troops doing the work. There is still the issue with stingers and Javelins and drones. These kinds of defensive weapons are making it substantially harder for the invader, even one in good shape.

One of the early lessons of the war is how asymmetrical warfare with drones, javelins and stingers seems to have changed the balance against heavy armor without air superiority. I would agree that the army being fielded by Russia in Ukraine is not equipped or led by the best, but technology changes warfare. In World War I, putting a machine gun in a slit trench nullified the Calvary charge as a tactic. We might be seeing the tank go the way the Calvary charge.

[Moksha]

Republican WalMart shoppers.

Republicans on their way to Walmart:

[honorentheos]

One of the early lessons of the war is how asymmetrical warfare with drones, javelins and stingers seems to have changed the balance against heavy armor without air superiority. I would agree that the army being fielded by Russia in Ukraine is not equipped or led by the best, but technology changes warfare. In World War I, putting a machine gun in a slit trench nullified the Calvary charge as a tactic. We might be seeing the tank go the way the Calvary charge.

In the Gulf War in '91, the defining technology was GPS. It enabled US armored units to navigate over open desert in ways the Iraqi Army could not, and allowed US tank units to "surprise" Iraqi positions by assaulting from directions and at speed they didn't have the capacity to anticipate because it was unimaginable a force could attack them from this directions and as quickly. Yet most of us observing the war via CNN at the time would say the smart bomb was what defined the war. Guided munitions were also decisive in combat but they made for better propaganda as idea of their use on high value targets could get to Iraqi military leadership even more effectively than the weapons could.

I say that because what we observe with Russian military activity is bizarrely outdated. Their armor often seems to have outpaces the infantry, attacking forward positions without ground troops observably nearby, or it is bunched up in movements that make for enticing targets for forward observing drones to call in or attack themselves.

That's not how we use armor, and I doubt most modern militaries operating with effective tactical command do anywhere, either.

For example, watch the way this Ukrainian squad advances on entrenched Russian forces in defensive positions inside of a school building:
https://youtu.be/Ss9IhqS8YRI?t=151

I don't think armor is going anywhere. Perhaps the sweeping advances of tank platoons is outdated, but one could argue they were always situational.

Now helicopters are another nut. Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan saw many helicopters brought down by rocket propelled grenades and other less sophisticated weapons. But faced with Stinger missiles, the Russian helicopters seem to have been largely neutralized based on the early availability of videos of their being shot down while now one rarely sees them show up in combat footage. Russian close air support of their infantry seems minimal. Both combined with a demoralized, poorly lead infantry make for made matchups where the weaknesses of each type of force is able to be exploited.

We are certainly learning from this war but I don't think armor is going to go the way of the calvary charge.