The reduced time between detection and engagement, driven by real-time drone surveillance and the high velocity of FPV attack drones, has created a hostile environment for traditional armored platforms on the battlefield.

This battlefield approach is likely to become a lasting part of Russian military practice, making it relevant for those preparing to counter Russian aggression

All credits to Tatarigami_UA and Frontelligence Insight team

Thread with key findings here: https://xcancel.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1937204380740256083

  • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
    0·
    7 days ago

    In response to these challenges and the accelerating depletion of armored vehicle reserves, Russian forces have increasingly relied on small tactical units using concealed movement to reduce the risk of detection. However, this comes at the cost of mobility and operational flexibility. Once discovered, such groups are often quickly eliminated by drone or artillery strikes. Even when they achieve tactical success, their ability to exploit defense breakthroughs are seriously limited when operating on foot.

    This needs to be bolded, because I am sure there is going to be some unintentional or intentional propaganda about “New Russian Motorbike Tactics” and while I recognize that I am sure Russia is innovating with motorbike tactics this is also just a brutal waste of human life being done blatantly.

    In otherwords, they are using motorbikes instead of APCs sometimes simply because they don’t have any APCs.

    the reason this line started going down after 2024 isn’t because Ukraine began to lose/stopped going on the offensive, it is because Russia no longer has enough armored vehicles to lose them in battle at a statistically significant rate compared to Ukraine’s practically available and functional armored vehicles.

    https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-battlefield-woes-ukraine

    • jasory@programming.dev
      0·
      6 days ago

      Why don’t they have any APCs? What was causing them to lose them at such a high rate? Surely if they produce more of them, they won’t lose them again to the exact same battlefield tactics.

      You complain about propaganda, yet the way you seem to avoid repeating the “propaganda”, is to regress to completely ignoring why APCs weren’t protecting troops anyway.

      The reality is that in Ukraine, the drone and artillery concentration is such that armored vehicles aren’t effective. What is effective is having small agile units that can advance before the enemy can direct fire at them.

      • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
        0·
        6 days ago

        Why don’t they have any APCs? What was causing them to lose them at such a high rate? Surely if they produce more of them, they won’t lose them again to the exact same battlefield tactics.

        Because they have resorted to throwing large numbers of armored vehicles at a foe that has innovated with new technology far better and has large amounts of foreign military help especially along intelligence and target acquisition tactics.

        The reality is that in Ukraine, the drone and artillery concentration is such that armored vehicles aren’t effective. What is effective is having small agile units that can advance before the enemy can direct fire at them.

        This could not be further from the truth, I can link plenty of sources to this but no armored vehicles are just as important as they ever have been and you are falling prey to shallow popular mechanics style future war hype pieces if you think that drones and artillery make armor obsolete.

        To point out something basic, the reason Ukraine hasn’t been able to make decisive use of the 30 or so abrams and 30 or so leopards main battle tanks they were given (which is actually quite an intimidating number of tanks given that these tanks eat Russian tanks for breakfast, well actually usually for a midnight snack…) is that Ukraine hasn’t until recently had the necessary artillery to support an armored assault outside the context of decisive air power (which Ukraine also doesn’t have).

        The thing people often don’t realize about main battle tanks is they are much more vulnerable to infantry than one would assume, even when the infantry opposing the tank don’t have the means to directly destroy the tank. Tanks must either

        1. be heavily screened with infantry and other assets to help them not miss a hidden enemy with anti-tank capability or some kind of physical tank trap/hole designed to strand the tank crew in openground vulnerable to artillery

        Or…

        1. this is the most critical thing! Main battle tanks are best used to create a breach through heavily entrenched enemy lines, but a crucial element of this push must be a very closely coordinated, absolutely oppressive rolling artillery barrage that advances along the front and corridors of an armored heavy assault. This rolling barrage of artillery changes the caluculus as not being in a trench or an armored vehicle becomes a stochastic risk from shrapnel flying out of the air and ending your life.

        Tanks can move through this kind of intense breach opened at the absolute most high intensity conflict areas in a land war and survive the hellish conditions which might include very close by artillery support to repel counterattacks.

        • jasory@programming.dev
          0·
          5 days ago

          So your response is to make an irrelevant and sophomoric monologue?

          You acknowledge yourself that the ideal tactics don’t actually work in Ukraine. And yet you never ask yourself why, and how you are supposed to mitigate the countermeasures.

          Also, try not to accuse others of falling to a notion, when they give zero evidence for you to claim clairvoyance. Notice that I didn’t accuse you of falling for the “meat wave” notion, even though you were almost certainly alluding to it.

          • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
            0·
            5 days ago

            You really think that because you understand math and programming that magically makes you understand war don’t you?

            sigh the thing is this is basic stuff with armored/mechanized warfare, it isn’t new, so you obviously really really REALLY don’t know what you are talking about and as smart as you are you undermine and weaponize all that intelligence by being so confidently wrong and unable to listen.

            Perfect example of how computer nerds can be absolutely insufferable with their assumed intellectual superiority on domains they are completely talking out of their asses on and just assume work the same as programming or math.

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XJE76Lt4g7E

            https://en.defence-ua.com/industries/ukrainian_armor_llc_is_ready_to_mass_produce_varta_2_apc_integrated_with_sich_30mm_gun_turret-14598.html

            The long-awaited combat vehicle entering serial production opens new opportunities to acquire vital armor for the Ukrainian Armed Forces and find export success globally Ukrainian Armor LLC has officially announced the completion of testing and codification procedures for its new Varta-2 wheeled armored vehicle, which has now received clearance for delivery to the Defense Forces of Ukraine.

            This milestone marks the beginning of serial production of a combat platform that frontline soldiers have repeatedly requested, according to the company’s press service.

            https://english.nv.ua/russian-war/ukraine-s-international-legion-hails-bradley-s-resilience-in-saving-lives-50484889.html

            M113s have become indispensable for Ukraine’s armed forces. These vehicles not only help stop Russian advances with their advanced weaponry but also save the lives of countless Ukrainian soldiers. For Paradox and his comrades, the Bradley is more than just a vehicle—it’s a trusted member of their team, one that consistently proves its worth in the face of relentless danger.

            “Our determination to rescue it wasn’t just about saving a piece of equipment,” Paradox explained. “The M113 saves lives every day. It’s a symbol of survival and victory.”

            https://armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/2025/breaking-news-france-to-continue-military-aid-to-ukraine-with-phase-out-of-army-combat-vehicles-and-missiles

            It was a highly unusual package at that moment. There were 60 boats, 400 vehicles, and 1,600 missiles. The boats and missiles I understood then, but only now am I able to grasp the importance of 400 vehicles. Britain set the ball rolling. Since they released the aid package before the United States did, I think it nudged the United States to include a decent amount of Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles and M113 Armored Personnel Carriers. Now, Sweden is sending 650 vehicles.

            To help with mobility, France has sent 38 AMX-10 RCR armored vehicles, and approximately 260 VABs armored personnel carriers. These vehicles have been crucial in allowing Ukrainian forces to remain mobile and protected on the battlefield. Additionally, Ukraine has received a range of logistical support in the form of Renault TRM 2000 trucks, Renault TRM 10000 fuel trucks, and Peugeot P4 off-road vehicles, which were partially funded by crowdfunding efforts from the Ukrainian public.

            https://shankar20.medium.com/why-the-allies-are-pouring-ifvs-and-apcs-into-ukraine-91f68dcfc5c6

            Estimates vary, but it is reasonable to assume the Russians have around half a million troops in Ukraine. As Russian Defense Minister Belosov and President Putin warily watch their Soviet-era tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and armored personnel carriers deplete at an alarming rate, there is only one recourse they have: pile up the infantry.

            They are already doing that, and they are going to do it even more.

            …

            They cannot repeat the same mistake the Russians have made by asking their soldiers to find their way to the frontline. Ukraine needs a significant number of infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) and armored personnel carriers (APCs). They need these vehicles now and a steady flow of them in the future. Ukraine requires a highly mobile army that can move in and out of the frontline at an alarming speed.

            Would you like to discuss another topic you assume you understand without having even learned the basics of yet?

            • jasory@programming.dev
              0·
              5 days ago

              Would you like to practice clairvoyance some more? You have gone on two unhinged tangents speculating on claims I’ve never made

              You concede that your commentary is highly trivial, and yet you keep talking.

              This is truly sad and pathetic, and at this point I suspect that you are actually mentally ill. No normal person responds like this, let alone to a claim that they imagined.

    • Øπ3ŕ@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      0·
      7 days ago

      In short, swarm tactics only work as long as you have swarms to deploy, and proxy/aux swarms are nowhere near the same thing in any capacity.

      • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
        0·
        7 days ago

        Also, this tactic relies on weapon systems being designed for an enemy that somewhat values life, so the weapon systems are highly lethal, focused and have a limited amount of ammunition so they can be overwhelmed by pure volume easily.

        The easy counter to Russia’s strategy here is to just have autonomous 7.62 machine gun unmanned ground vehicles (similar to the ones Ukraine has been using for medevac uses, which is really really really fucking cool especially for all the non-war rescue use cases these things are going to save lives in when the rest of the world catches on) that screen important defense position or armored manned vehicles.

        Now when the motorbikes try to swarm the position, they have just put themselves in the crossfire of lightly armored autonomous machine guns controlled by central, entrenched enemies/armored vehicles. Sure the motorbikes can focus on destroying the lmg robots, but then they aren’t dealing with the actual issue which is the entrenched position or the armored vehicle the unmanned machine gun platform is screening. The unmanned vehicles don’t even need to be that capable given that a Russian motorbike doing circles around a Ukranian tank (which is a very dangerous position for an armored vehicle to be in), is from the perspective of an umanned LMG ground vehicle 300 meters away, a target that is moving back and forth only slightly.

        Guess what is even cheaper than a motorbike, a human life, and some training, drugs and ak47? A 7.62mm bullet.

        This is not a winning strategy, it is an act of cowardice on Russia’s part to throw away human lives so carelessly.

        • Øπ3ŕ@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          0·
          7 days ago

          non-war rescue use cases

          It’s somewhat endearing that you seem to think those won’t see more use in population (protest, et al) control. 🤢😅

          • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
            0·
            7 days ago

            I mean sure they will, its just an unmanned autonomous LMG mintank isn’t thattt much more effective than infantry, and is much much much more vulnerable to being destroyed by a more nimble human opponent especially if they have RPGs.

            …but yeah, they will and it will be awful

            However, you can’t tell me these type of unmanned rescue vehicles won’t be used for rescues all over the world in conditions that rescue services simply couldn’t justify risking a human life to try to reach somebody in desperate need of help.

            This is basically the concept of a self propelled allterrain stretcher, and the use cases for that for human life saving are so immense.

              • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
                0·
                7 days ago

                Ok here is one example that immediately disproves your cynicism.

                Imagine you are walking through a field and all of a sudden you step on a mine. Maybe you are soldier in a war, maybe you are a kid exploring an overgrown lot the adults told you to avoid, who knows the situation all that matters is you stepped on the mine and now it has severely wounded you to the point that you will die if you aren’t immediately evacuated.

                Luckily for you, there are people around that can call for help… but wait… you and them realize in horror that if anybody tries to rescue you they are also walking into a minefield. This is a very real situation and is one of the brutal aspects of minefields.

                Now imagine you had a robot stretcher that somebody could drive up to you, load you up and drive away and whatever risk the robot would be taking wouldn’t matter because the worst case that happens is the robot blows up, best case a human life is saved.

                There are plenty of equivalent cases where the lethal threat isn’t a minefield, and you can sketch out basically the same situation.

                • Øπ3ŕ@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                  0·
                  7 days ago

                  I am not misunderstanding the concept, thank you. I am, however, extremely skeptical of power being capable of valuing human life beyond a stat.

                  • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
                    0·
                    7 days ago

                    Ok here is another easy hypothetical, imagine the surfboard equivalent of an umanned jetpowered surfboard that could be sent out to rescue people who have been swept out to sea in storm conditions. In a situation that might be too dangerous for even lifeguards to enter into, a surfboard could be driven out to the person to at least provide them something to hold onto and at best rescue them without ever having put a human life at risk, and rescuers will have been able to try a lower percent success rescue mission that is better than sitting back and doing nothing (vs. putting a human crew in extreme risk and failing to keep them safe during the rescue).

                    This kind of vehicle makes a normal stretcher immediately obsolete in any kind of open terrain scenario where help is far away, difficult or dangerous to get to. Even if a human crew accompanies the UGV rescuing someone, they can be far more alert to dangers and hazards and deal with them accordingly if they aren’t exhausted and distracted by carrying the person on a stretcher manually.

                    Logistics will never be the same, of any kind, honestly it is such a generally useful and simple use of unmanned technology.