.
The Russo-Ukrainian War is yet again a positional war without 'proper' breakthroughs and exploitations of the same. This is similar to WWI in 1915 and 1916 and the Iraq-Iran War in the 80's.
Breakthroughs would be possible with 2010's tech if enough local superiority was amassed IMO. That's what NATO would do; bomb a front sector to dust, then drive through.
Good breakthrough schemes usually unite superior local forces (/effects) a.k.a. superior mass, surprise and speed. Having two of these three factors united may suffice for a breakthrough.
I will here make the case that the Ukrainians and Russians are about to get that effective mass again and will thus SOON be able to break through well-prepared defensive lines again.
But first a word of caution; breakthrough is worth very little if not followed by an effective exploitation of the breakthrough. That was the difference between offensives in 1916-1918 and 1941-1945.
The Ukrainian artillery munition shortage in 2022-2023 forced them to innovate with drones. They did mostly replay the air warfare innovations of 1915-1917 with small unmanned rotorcraft.
Radio jamming and interferences limited this to the level of harrassment fires, though. You cannot have a thousand drones transmit video feeds simultaneously from one km of front. The signals would interfere. Radio datalink drones cannot muster the mass required for a breakthrough.
This finally changed with the successful introduction of fibreoptic datalinks that do not interfere and cannot be jammed and seem to rarely break or be cut.
Western armies had such ddvelopments going on in the 90's and a few such missiles were introduced.
https://x.com/GrandpaRoy2/status/1832101575634133472?t=nomA2pNeUEDcreXI3fYD1g&s=19
https://x.com/GrandpaRoy2/status/1831776498526908596?t=0wepU3MZZPUqmQyanTnjUg&s=19
5,000 fibreoptic drones in action on 5 km width and up to 5 km ahead of the attack force, supported by some high vantage point observation drones and battlefield radars could enable a breakthrough even with 1980's equipment and without terribly many artillery shells.
A division of labour between drones could be
a) scouting (even below trees and into buildings, even dugouts)
b) battlefield interdiction (waiting by roadside for vehicles)
c) FPV kamikaze with light warheads
d) de-foliaging and de-netting drones with incendiary spray
d) bombers to drop heavy blast charges into dugout entrances and buildings and on mine barriers
e) fighter-interceptors to counter enemy drones (two versions; high performance and cheap)
f) mine locating drones (mostly thermal camera with magnetic detector for confirmation)
Imagine a kilometres-deep screen of such unjammable drones clearing the path with overwhelming local superiority of numbers.
The next challenge would be 'proper' exploitation.
Do there yet exist any successful fighter-interceptor drones?
ReplyDeletehttps://mil.in.ua/en/news/interceptor-drones-shot-down-over-100-russian-uavs/
DeleteI don't think the tech matured, but it's somewhat effective.
I guess a FPV drone with a car parking sensor for fusing might work at the low cost end of spectrum.
Time for mini SAMs and mini Fighters!
ReplyDeleteP.S. you didn't proofread this post did you? At least turn on the autocorrect, jeez.
I wrote it on the phone and have no functioning computer now.
Delete''I will here make the case that the Ukrainians and Russians are about to get that effective mass again and will thus SOON be able to break through well-prepared defensive lines again.''
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you say that? I'm curious, because to me they seem far away from getting there.
As I wrote; drone tech will allow practically unlimited massing of (drone) forces, enabling the massing advantage and thoroughness needed for breakthrough.
DeleteThe defender would be overwhelmed unless he countermassed in time.
I get it, but imo the problem is not tech, but the fact that both sides lack good tactical and Operational leadership. None can command attacks above the platoon or company level. also, a problem that Slavs have had for centuries, is the lack of commanders with good tactical acumen. Breakthroughs necessitate skillful leadership and history shows that pretty much only the Wehrmacht(maybe the fins as well) mastered the breakthrough battle(after the experience of WWI).Every other European army has failed. The Britons massed overwhelming firepower, airpower and troops on July 1944(Operation Goodwood) and blasted the equivalent of 8 1 kiloton nukes on German lines and still failed to breakthrough , whereas months later with all materiel deficiencies the Wehrmacht broke through in wacht am rhein. Leadership is the key imho, and I wonder how much of the Very special Prussian 'Krieg Kunst' as the Bundeswehr truly preserved?. snyway Thanks for your reply.
Deletesorry - it is the 1st time I'm told "wacht am rhein" has been a sound plan and an operational success - most historians reckon that neither Model nor Rundsted believed in the grandiose plans of Hitler, and as far as I know the offensive faltered and the german army was pushed back after some initial success !
ReplyDeletesorry - it is the 1st time I'm told "wacht am rhein" has been a sound plan and an operational success - most historians reckon that neither Model nor Rundsted believed in the grandiose plans of Hitler, and as far as I know the offensive faltered and the german army was pushed back after some initial success !
ReplyDeletesorry, maybe you misunderstood my paragraph, I never said wacht am rhein was a ''sound plan and an operational success '', I merely stated the fact that they successfully broke through the allied defenses. That is, they successfully conducted a breakthrough ,which is a very difficult thing to achieve and an activity which most armies have not done well.
In Wacht am Rhein, the german army did not break through, they managed a counter offensive with some initial success, and then were beaten back. A better example would be the blitzkrieg in Poland and France, and the in Russia.
ReplyDelete''In Wacht am Rhein, the german army did not break through, they managed a counter offensive with some initial success, and then were beaten back.''
DeleteThey did Breakthrough in wacht am Rhein, their problem was the exploitation of said breakthrough.
The German progress at Kursk 1943 on open terrain in face of extremely well-prepared and strong defenders was astonishing. They even succeeded at inflicting higher losses to the defenders.
ReplyDeleteGerman combat leadership was indeed astonishing!. Still believe the Breakthrough in Ukraine war is close?
DeleteThe availability and competence of an Arko (artillery planning staff) was essential.
DeleteNowadays you need a drone planning staff, too.
''The availability and competence of an Arko (artillery planning staff) was essential.
ReplyDeleteNowadays you need a drone planning staff, too.''
Do you think there is the staff competence on the ground there?
The usual pattern is that something new will first be usedin small quantity, then in great quantity but with little thought and finally in sufficient quantity with skill. Then others will copy poorly with little skill.
DeleteI think by 2026 at the latest there will be superior drone mass breaktgroughs, but morale may fail the Russions earlier.
''I think by 2026 at the latest there will be superior drone mass breaktgroughs''
ReplyDeleteI don't know why I get the sense that a huge mass of drones flying in the direction of defense might be easier to spot and maybe more cost effective to shoot. after all the claims in many reports say that one of their advantages is that since they fly in small numbers they are less easy to spot and as a result have surprise when they strike.
1) The Russians don't have that.
Delete2) Nobody has that in relevant quantity.
3) It's radar-dependent, thus facing attrition if forward-deployed.
4) Same about size and firing signature.
5) Fibreoptic drones can fly at 1 m or even drive.
6) No such system can stop 100 drones (the cost of a good car) attacking in one wave.
7) No such system can fight through the bushes and treelines that separate fields in Ukraine.
8) Such defences may help airbases.
1-they don't have it now but certainly would get it in the future and
Delete2-obviously from here to the time you speak the mass of drones might appear definitely their quantity will rise
3- a mayor problem with drones is that they are not that fast which will allow the defense to hit a good portion of them and thereby diminish the impact of the drone swarm.
A FPV can be 30 m/s fast with a warhead and fibreoptic spool.
DeleteThey would only need to sprint across a 1 km field before reaching even the best defence systems.
https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2022/05/a-little-terrain-analysis-from-eastern.html
That's 33 seconds. Do you seriously think any defence could stop 3 drones per second?
A 100-drone assault costs only as much as a good car!
How about 200-drone attack? That's 6 kills required per second, without any lag.
Only area EMP could deal with that (unless the drones are hardened, which is easy).
And there's still #3 and #4.
This kind of SPAAG defence is not helpful for defending within 10+ km of FLOT in positional warfare.
Could such destruction speeds in defense be achieved with laser weapons?
DeleteLasers are slower.
DeleteEMP or other area effects (gazillions of small fragments) would be needed.
I think superior drone mass will prevail in 2026 ceteris paribus.
As my "quick googling" did not yield sensible results:
ReplyDeleteCan anyone point me to the cost of these kind of Fiber Optic Cable (in contrast to a radio system)?
What I found suggests upward of 50 cents per meter, meaning easily double the cost of the drone itself. This does absolutely not feel right.
https://x.com/DefenceFreedom/status/1832491021122605270?t=kQUoW11dxEsUZqdegUfX2w&s=19
DeleteThanks Sven!
DeleteSo rather 25 cents per 100 meters... That's not much!