Continuation The Russian invasion of Ukraine part 6

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Oystein

That was in the making anyway. So why bother?
Occam says: Event A happened. Event B happened. RU says they did B because of A.
It is most parsimonous NOT to assume RU actually timed B in response to A when coincidence and subseqient exploitation are perfectly likely explanation.

I'm not saying it did happen that way, only that it is another semi-plausible explanation to add to the list. Also, the ultra-nationalists may not have been aware of the plan for a mass strike on civilian targets.

The counter argument to anybody from Russia doing it is that the act shut down the railway and if you wanted Russia to win in Ukraine, you would avoid doing that. The counter counter argument is that the Russians haven't shown much sign of competence in this war so far. The counter counter counter argument is that Russia had never needed an excuse to commit warcrimes in the previous several months.

Anyway, my personal opinion is that the most likely explanation is that Ukraine did it or some other group sympathetic to Ukraine.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Historically, terror bombing like this has never had the outcome you describe. The actual effect is to strengthen the resolve of the defenders, and harden the hearts of onlookers against the aggressor.

It's never broken the will of the enemy, that's true. It didn't break the will of the British in 1940-41 when Germany tried to do it and it didn't break the will of the Germans in 1942-45 when the British and Americans tried to do it. Nor did it break the will of the Japanese in 1945 when the Americans tried it, at least not until they started dropping atom bombs.

However, when done on a large enough scale, it can have an impact on the enemy's ability to prosecute the war. The bombing campaign in Germany diverted a lot of German resources away from the Eastern Front. Albert Speer said as much after the war.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Michel H

If the Ukrainians see that, every time they "liberate" a village or a town near Kherson, one of their power stations is destroyed or badly damaged, they might get discouraged, and reflect:"Do we have the right to do this to our mothers, to our children, to our relatives? What's the point, really?".

Maybe, they're weighing up what will happen to them under Russian control?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_cr...exual_violence

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

It's never broken the will of the enemy, that's true. It didn't break the will of the British in 1940-41 when Germany tried to do it and it didn't break the will of the Germans in 1942-45 when the British and Americans tried to do it. Nor did it break the will of the Japanese in 1945 when the Americans tried it, at least not until they started dropping atom bombs.

However, when done on a large enough scale, it can have an impact on the enemy's ability to prosecute the war. The bombing campaign in Germany diverted a lot of German resources away from the Eastern Front. Albert Speer said as much after the war.

It's pretty clear we're talking about terror bombing as such, and not strategic military-industrial bombing on a scale that will substantially degrade Ukraine's ability to fight.

For one thing, Ukraine's ability to fight is not measured in a vacuum. Russia's own ability to fight is also being degraded, probably faster than Ukraine's. Unless they're able to bomb in sufficient volume to close that widening power gap, they're not going to make much difference to the outcome of the war.

For another, a lot of Ukraine's war machine is running outside Ukraine. The manufacture and preparation of modern weapons, of course. But also the repair and refurbishment of Soviet-era equipment is happening in Poland and other places that use similar equipment and are not targets of Russian strategic bombing.

For another, a lot of Ukraine's training of new troops is happening outside of Ukraine.

Finally, the west's industrial and logistical capacity has not yet been even remotely taxed by this conflict, and has plenty of room left to ramp up production in the face of faltering Ukrainian infrastructure.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

Supposedly they are also attempting to evacuate what's left of their professional (if one can call them "professional") forces in the area and replacing them with conscripts.

I think the term is Cannon Fodder.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

.... The counter counter counter argument is that Russia had never needed an excuse to commit warcrimes in the previous several months....

Which took you full circle back to my original argument

[theprestige]

Russia is shifting to a war economy:

Moscow Times:

https://www.moscowtimes.eu/2022/10/2...onomiku-a25703

"For you, the day you shifted to a war economy to sustain your special military operation was the worst day of your life. For me, it was Tuesday."

- NATO, probably

[Doubt]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Russia is shifting to a war economy:

Moscow Times:

https://www.moscowtimes.eu/2022/10/2...onomiku-a25703

"For you, the day you shifted to a war economy to sustain your special military operation was the worst day of your life. For me, it was Tuesday."

- NATO, probably

That would be a great plan if they could still win a war with T-34s.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Russia is shifting to a war economy:

Moscow Times:

https://www.moscowtimes.eu/2022/10/2...onomiku-a25703

"For you, the day you shifted to a war economy to sustain your special military operation was the worst day of your life. For me, it was Tuesday."

- NATO, probably

Their economy and their war are enjoying similar success, so in that sense they already had a "war "economy"

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Doubt

That would be a great plan if they could still win a war with T-34s.

After the war, I wonder how much metal will be salvageable from all those destroyed tanks and how many buildings they could be used to help rebuild?

[junkshop]

Originally Posted by Aridas

After the war, I wonder how much metal will be salvageable from all those destroyed tanks and how many buildings they could be used to help rebuild?

It is also worth noting that any salvageable salvage is unlikely to to be salvaged by Russian salvagers, due to said salvageable material being in the wrong country for Russian salvagers to salvage.


(I like writing salvage, and it's variants).

[Olmstead]

Originally Posted by Craig4

If Russians see that Ukraine will just keep killing their sons, they might decide to stop sending their sons. Power stations can be repaired. Dead sons stay dead.

Maybe once the death benefits start drying out due to economic collapse. There has been some speculation that life in rural Russia is so bad that risking your life or losing family members in exchange for monetary compensation is actually a boon.

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by Michel H

If the Ukrainians see that, every time they "liberate" a village or a town near Kherson, one of their power stations is destroyed or badly damaged, they might get discouraged, and reflect:"Do we have the right to do this to our mothers, to our children, to our relatives? What's the point, really?".

Just what are the Ukrainians "doing" to their mothers, children and relatives? They are not destroying the power stations etc. It is the Russian military that is doing that Ukrainian mothers, children et al.

It is the Russians who are doing those actions not the Ukrainian resistance. Once again attacking the victim for trying to fight off the aggressor and evading the responsibility of the aggressor.

The Russians could quite simply stop doing this crap.

It seems you think that a campaign of terror against civilians should actually work.

Perhaps has the Russian economy collapses and more and more Russian bodies come back in bodybags the Russians will think "Do we have the right to do this to our mothers, to our children, to our relatives? What's the point, really?"

[SpitfireIX]

From ISW's latest Ukraine update:

On October 26, Wagner Group financier Yevgeniy Prigozhin denied ISW’s report that Prigozhin confronted Putin and other siloviki factions in the Kremlin regarding the progress of the Russian war in Ukraine. Prigozhin explicitly denied ISW’s October 25 assessment and falsely insinuated that ISW receives classified intelligence. ISW does not receive any classified material from any source, uses only publicly available information, and draws extensively on Russian, Ukrainian, and Western reporting and social media as well as commercially available satellite imagery and other geospatial data as the basis for these reports. ISW specifically does not receive information from Prigozhin’s deceased mother-in-law, as he (ironically) suggested. [bolding original; note omitted]

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

From ISW's latest Ukraine update:

On October 26, Wagner Group financier Yevgeniy Prigozhin denied ISW’s report that Prigozhin confronted Putin and other siloviki factions in the Kremlin regarding the progress of the Russian war in Ukraine. Prigozhin explicitly denied ISW’s October 25 assessment and falsely insinuated that ISW receives classified intelligence. ISW does not receive any classified material from any source, uses only publicly available information, and draws extensively on Russian, Ukrainian, and Western reporting and social media as well as commercially available satellite imagery and other geospatial data as the basis for these reports. ISW specifically does not receive information from Prigozhin’s deceased mother-in-law, as he (ironically) suggested. [bolding original; note omitted]

https://twitter.com/christogrozev/st...pfzDoPXSUE_1bw

Quote:

Christo Grozev
@christogrozev
·
8h
Prigozhin now officially throwing the gauntlet at Shoigu. There's no off-ramp from this.

And Putin seems irrelevant in this battle. Which is a bad place for an autocrat to be.

[Aridas]

On the Russian propaganda front -

Quote:

Propagandists on Russian state TV say relations between Ukrainians & Russians can be fixed within a year or two after Ukraine is incorporated into Russia.

They say Ukrainian soldiers will then help Russia “storm Warsaw & Berlin”.

Uh huh. Still blatantly showing off intent to conquer all of Ukraine, but with added stated intent to use the Ukrainian people to attack NATO in short order. It's the quiet part out loud, again.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Aridas

On the Russian propaganda front -



Uh huh. Still blatantly showing off intent to conquer all of Ukraine, but with added stated intent to use the Ukrainian people to attack NATO in short order. It's the quiet part out loud, again.

"We respect our Ukrainian Brothers so much that we will use them as cannon fodder!"

[The Don]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

"We respect our Ukrainian Brothers so much that we will use them as cannon fodder!"

I think you mis-spelled "give them every opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to liberating Eastern Europe from NATO Nazis"

[Filippo Lippi]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

"We respect our Ukrainian Brothers so much that we will use them as cannon fodder!"

they're using up all the other cannon fodder, by definition

[theprestige]

I woke up this morning with a terrible thought: Gas masks. US Army basic training includes training for gas attacks. It also includes training for recognizing and treating the symptoms of a nerve agent attack, in yourself and others. Standard equipment issue for US soldiers includes both a gas mask and single-use atropine injectors. I'm sure it's the same for pretty much all western armies.

My point is that for decades, in preparing our troops for a fight with Russia, we have always assumed that chemical weapons were on the table. Everything from tear gas to nerve gas was expected to arrive on the battlefield sooner or later. Now Russia's actually in a shooting war with a (near) peer NATO proxy, and I'm wondering do the Ukrainian troops even have gas masks?

I dunno. Is the preparedness a hangover from the early Cold War days, when we also kind of expected tactical nukes in the Fulda Gap? Is everyone who knows anything pretty much of the opinion that neither nations nor terrorist groups are going to mount any kind of chemical attack worth worrying about?

I suppose the most plausible explanation is some combination of the following:

- Ukraine won't use gas because they're not monsters

- Russia doesn't have the stockpiles necessary for a gas-enabled advance at any useful scale

- Russian troops lack the coordination and discipline to actually exploit a gas barrage to their front even if one were gifted to them

- In any case, Russian troops also lack any gas-protection equipment or other countermeasures such as atropine, and would end up being just as incapacitated by the enemy, in a gas-enabled advance.

But still. Let's hope the Russians just don't have the stockpiles. I guess if Wagner had chemical weapons, and chemical protection gear, they would have tried it on Bakhmut already. Or maybe it's the next move in their power struggle with Shoigu.

[Ziggurat]

Chemical weapons would not be particularly useful against NATO, so if Russia has chemical weapons stockpiles, I don't think they're holding back on them for fear of running out. And unfortunately, it doesn't take a large quantity of the stuff. So I wouldn't put it past them.

But training is an issue, and protective equipment for Russian troops is an issue. You don't want to give chemical weapons to troops that haven't been trained in how to use them, and you need any troops in the area to also be trained and equipped to protect themselves. And these are major weaknesses in the Russian army. They've got enough morale problems as it is, if they start killing their own troops with nerve gas, they could risk open revolt. So that probably makes widespread chemical weapons use prohibitive.

As for small scale use, it might be possible, but it becomes a question of whether it's worth it. Assuming that the Ukrainian army isn't prepared to defend against it, you could probably halt an advance with some chemical weapons. But that's an escalation that may produce more blowback, even with limited use, than it's worth.

So my suspicion is that the lack of training and protective gear makes widespread use unattractive, and cost-benefit make small scale use unattractive. I think Russia won't use chemical weapons. I am not sure, though, and would certainly not stake my life on it.

[tyr_13]

Ukrainian intelligence released what it claims is captured audio of a conversation explaining how Russia has set up three lines deep on the front so that the rear two lines can shoot deserters. The audio is from people in the middle line talking about how the convicts are in the first line.

Now it may or may not be authentic audio and this may or may not be actually happening (something like it would almost certainly have to be done for Russias 'recruits' as of late even if this doesn't stop surrender) but if true, they may need another line. Then another. And another. Until at the back it's just Putin with a gun in the world's new worst MLM pyramid.

Also it is kind of funny that Russia may invade Russia in winter with all the infighting.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Chemical weapons would not be particularly useful against NATO, so if Russia has chemical weapons stockpiles, I don't think they're holding back on them for fear of running out. And unfortunately, it doesn't take a large quantity of the stuff. So I wouldn't put it past them.

But training is an issue, and protective equipment for Russian troops is an issue. You don't want to give chemical weapons to troops that haven't been trained in how to use them, and you need any troops in the area to also be trained and equipped to protect themselves. And these are major weaknesses in the Russian army. They've got enough morale problems as it is, if they start killing their own troops with nerve gas, they could risk open revolt. So that probably makes widespread chemical weapons use prohibitive.

As for small scale use, it might be possible, but it becomes a question of whether it's worth it. Assuming that the Ukrainian army isn't prepared to defend against it, you could probably halt an advance with some chemical weapons. But that's an escalation that may produce more blowback, even with limited use, than it's worth.

So my suspicion is that the lack of training and protective gear makes widespread use unattractive, and cost-benefit make small scale use unattractive. I think Russia won't use chemical weapons. I am not sure, though, and would certainly not stake my life on it.

There you go again. Trying to bring logic into this Russian regime's methods of fighting this war. If they were actually capable of using serious logic they never would have invaded Ukraine to begin with.

What makes you think that they would have any concern whatsoever for the safety of their troops if they thought that chemical weapons would give them even a brief advantage or gain that they could trumpet to the Russian public? They have certainly not displayed any concern for the safety of their troops so far.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I woke up this morning with a terrible thought: Gas masks. US Army basic training includes training for gas attacks. It also includes training for recognizing and treating the symptoms of a nerve agent attack, in yourself and others. Standard equipment issue for US soldiers includes both a gas mask and single-use atropine injectors. I'm sure it's the same for pretty much all western armies.

My point is that for decades, in preparing our troops for a fight with Russia, we have always assumed that chemical weapons were on the table. Everything from tear gas to nerve gas was expected to arrive on the battlefield sooner or later. Now Russia's actually in a shooting war with a (near) peer NATO proxy, and I'm wondering do the Ukrainian troops even have gas masks?

I dunno. Is the preparedness a hangover from the early Cold War days, when we also kind of expected tactical nukes in the Fulda Gap? Is everyone who knows anything pretty much of the opinion that neither nations nor terrorist groups are going to mount any kind of chemical attack worth worrying about?

I suppose the most plausible explanation is some combination of the following:

- Ukraine won't use gas because they're not monsters

- Russia doesn't have the stockpiles necessary for a gas-enabled advance at any useful scale

- Russian troops lack the coordination and discipline to actually exploit a gas barrage to their front even if one were gifted to them

- In any case, Russian troops also lack any gas-protection equipment or other countermeasures such as atropine, and would end up being just as incapacitated by the enemy, in a gas-enabled advance.

But still. Let's hope the Russians just don't have the stockpiles. I guess if Wagner had chemical weapons, and chemical protection gear, they would have tried it on Bakhmut already. Or maybe it's the next move in their power struggle with Shoigu.

Thread on this by a proper expert

https://twitter.com/DanKaszeta/statu...EjcrAqu-VcJWMg


ETA TLDR, probably not too much a risk, given everything.

Also, Russia has destroyed most of its stockpiles in the amounts it would need to perform such an attack

[Doubt]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Chemical weapons would not be particularly useful against NATO, so if Russia has chemical weapons stockpiles, I don't think they're holding back on them for fear of running out. And unfortunately, it doesn't take a large quantity of the stuff. So I wouldn't put it past them.

But training is an issue, and protective equipment for Russian troops is an issue. You don't want to give chemical weapons to troops that haven't been trained in how to use them, and you need any troops in the area to also be trained and equipped to protect themselves. And these are major weaknesses in the Russian army. They've got enough morale problems as it is, if they start killing their own troops with nerve gas, they could risk open revolt. So that probably makes widespread chemical weapons use prohibitive.

As for small scale use, it might be possible, but it becomes a question of whether it's worth it. Assuming that the Ukrainian army isn't prepared to defend against it, you could probably halt an advance with some chemical weapons. But that's an escalation that may produce more blowback, even with limited use, than it's worth.

So my suspicion is that the lack of training and protective gear makes widespread use unattractive, and cost-benefit make small scale use unattractive. I think Russia won't use chemical weapons. I am not sure, though, and would certainly not stake my life on it.

Both the US and Russia are supposed to have eliminated their chemical weapons stockpile by now. Russia claimed they finished a long time ago. But the discovery of Novichok nerve agents outside Russia suggests they have some new stuff on hand. Quantity is unknown.

The US stuff has taken forever to eliminate since the weapons themselves turned out to be in very bad shape. Handling has taken longer for safety reasons. I doubt any of the old Soviet stuff is in any better condition if they still exist. Likely the old stuff would be as much of a threat to those trying to use them as it would be to the Ukrainians.

The question are:

1.) How much Novichok actually exists?

2.) Do they have a safe way to deploy it without killing their own people.

Given the special care required to handle this stuff, I think it would be detected before use based on odd vehicle traffic and security for moving it around.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Olmstead

Maybe once the death benefits start drying out due to economic collapse. There has been some speculation that life in rural Russia is so bad that risking your life or losing family members in exchange for monetary compensation is actually a boon.

I understand that's already happening. It's not clear if there's a lack of fund or poor communications and organization but families aren't learning of the fates of their men who got conscripted.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Is it strategically counter productive? Destroying your enemy's infrastructure to make it harder for them to make war sounds like a fairly logical strategic aim to me.

Military units don't run on electricity from the grid and anything important to the military is either going to be powered by their own generators or have prioritized access to power meaning that this does next to nothing to hurt the Ukrainian military and instead it amounts to pure spite against Ukrainian civilians.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Russia is shifting to a war economy:

Moscow Times:

https://www.moscowtimes.eu/2022/10/2...onomiku-a25703

"For you, the day you shifted to a war economy to sustain your special military operation was the worst day of your life. For me, it was Tuesday."

- NATO, probably

This is just an act to give the impression that shortages are being addressed and try to deflect blame from Putin by putting emphasis on regional/provincial politicans who can then take the blame "for not doing enough".

[theprestige]

Mainly it doesn't make it harder enough to offset the inspiring effect it has on the defending civilians. Especially if you're being out-logisticated by your enemy's allies, and can't do enough damage fast enough to make things seem truly hopeless for the defenders.

[dudalb]

Putin deleivered a three hour rant today which is his craziest yet. He blamed the West for the war in Ukraine, and proclaimed a new world order with the implication that Russia will be the dominant power. Delusdional.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Military units don't run on electricity from the grid and anything important to the military is either going to be powered by their own generators or have prioritized access to power meaning that this does next to nothing to hurt the Ukrainian military and instead it amounts to pure spite against Ukrainian civilians.

They are used for moving materiel around. Ukraine has an electric train system.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Putin deleivered a three hour rant today which is his craziest yet. He blamed the West for the war in Ukraine, and proclaimed a new world order with the implication that Russia will be the dominant power. Delusdional.

Been done before, by one A. Hitler. That did not work out so well.

[Arcade22]

Putin makes a speech and everything he alleges "the collective west" has done against Russia, or the rest of the world, he himself if guilty of. While it's tempting to see this as him simply trying to excuse himself by shifting blame onto others, he is also making the Russian public more accepting of the alleged misdeeds "the west" has supposedly made.

If "everyone is doing it" then if Russia or Putin had also done it then it wouldn't look so bad in comparison. Russia would only be like a "normal country" and anyone who suggests otherwise is clearly biased against Russia, because they are making a big deal out of nothing. This is an important kind of attitude that Putin and Russian state encourages with regards to just about anything.

Take for example Russian State sponsored doping. One of the most important narratives spread by Russian media is that "All countries have doping and Russia is no worse than others. Russophobes are only out to blacken our name."

Because Russia is a "normal country" where "everything's all right" anyone that tries to portray the country negatively by bringing to light corruption, war crimes, lack of democracy and no respect for human rights is clearly acting out of "Russophobia".

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

They are used for moving materiel around. Ukraine has an electric train system.

Ukraine's national freight rail network is electric?

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It's pretty clear we're talking about terror bombing as such, and not strategic military-industrial bombing on a scale that will substantially degrade Ukraine's ability to fight.

I don't think the line between the two is as distinct as you do.

Quote:

For one thing, Ukraine's ability to fight is not measured in a vacuum. Russia's own ability to fight is also being degraded, probably faster than Ukraine's. Unless they're able to bomb in sufficient volume to close that widening power gap, they're not going to make much difference to the outcome of the war.

I don't think that is a question that need concern us. The only issue is whether the civilian bombing is degrading Russia's ability to fight more than Ukraine's. It costs Russia resources to bomb civilian targets, but it also costs Ukraine resources defending against the bombing.

Quote:

For another, a lot of Ukraine's war machine is running outside Ukraine. The manufacture and preparation of modern weapons, of course. But also the repair and refurbishment of Soviet-era equipment is happening in Poland and other places that use similar equipment and are not targets of Russian strategic bombing.

For another, a lot of Ukraine's training of new troops is happening outside of Ukraine.

And a lot of Russia's war machine is running beyond the range of Ukraine's strike capability.

Quote:

Finally, the west's industrial and logistical capacity has not yet been even remotely taxed by this conflict, and has plenty of room left to ramp up production in the face of faltering Ukrainian infrastructure.

These are all factors that have to be taken into account when deciding who is going to win, but for the specific act of bombing Ukrainian civilian targets, all you need to ask (excepting the moral questions of course) is whether the Ukraine war machine is being degraded more than the Russian war machine. At first, the answer would have been no, because Russia was using expensive long range missiles. However, now they are using cheap Iranian drones. If nothing else, they are using up Ukrainian SAMs.

[SpitfireIX]

By trackage length, Ukraine's rail system is about half electrified. The main lines are diesel, and the suburban lines are electrified (not unlike the situation in many other countries). So the long-distance passenger and heavy freight loads required to support the war effort are mostly moved by diesels. Also, bear in mind that the Ukrainians may be able to run diesel trains on electrified lines, depending on the weight of the rails.

[crescent]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

By trackage length, Ukraine's rail system is about half electrified. The main lines are diesel, and the suburban lines are electrified (not unlike the situation in many other countries). So the long-distance passenger and heavy freight loads required to support the war effort are mostly moved by diesels. Also, bear in mind that the Ukrainians may be able to run diesel trains on electrified lines, depending on the weight of the rails.

After one of the power-plant air strikes there was video of an "electric" passenger train being pulled by a diesel locomotive. So in a pinch that can happen although it probably requires a bit of work to prioritize the diesel's workloads.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

I don't think the line between the two is as distinct as you do.

Yeah, but neither of the scenarios under discussion is anywhere close to that line.

Quote:

And a lot of Russia's war machine is running beyond the range of Ukraine's strike capability.

I think it's abundantly clear at this point that Russia isn't really running much of a war machine at all.

[Doubt]

We may be far enough into this war to think about what it foreshadows in future conflicts. Still a bit early for conclusions but that won't stop me from trying. So what will the next conflict hold?

1.) Artillery rules the battlefield. Not just missiles. The little noted Excalibur shells have also been present but are not getting news coverage. Not seen in this conflict but in existence are precision guidance kits for normal shells. Super long barreled long range and even rocket boosted shells that can match the range of MLRS systems are in development.

2.) Tanks technology has trouble keeping up with anti-tanks weapons. Tanks are not going away but they need to stay back and let the infantry clear the way until enemy tanks show up.

3.) Drones are a wild card. The potential is not fulfilled in this conflict. This is as much a problem of imagining how you can use them and that the drones being used are not quite cutting edge technology. There is more to come here.

4.) Air defense is effective even when there is a less than comprehensive, nation covering shield. Stealth might slow it down but the limited ordnance of a stealth platform will force aircraft to act in ways that expose themselves to short range infrared systems.

5.) Air defense is more than missiles and guns. Drones make jammers and other technology more important. Incoming shells can even be intercepted now.

Probably needs to be a longer list.

[dasmiller]

Originally Posted by Doubt

We may be far enough into this war to think about what it foreshadows in future conflicts. Still a bit early for conclusions but that won't stop me from trying. So what will the next conflict hold?

<snip>

Quote:

3.) Drones are a wild card. The potential is not fulfilled in this conflict. This is as much a problem of imagining how you can use them and that the drones being used are not quite cutting edge technology. There is more to come here.

I agree with all this, but I want to add that there may be some real anti-droned progress, too. The big, high-altitude drones are effectively traditional aircraft, with the well-known and constantly-evolving countermeasures, counter-countermeasures, etc. The new cheap, expendable drones, however, are very low, slow & close compared to traditional aircraft, and will have very different vulnerabilities. There may be some relatively inexpensive but effective countermeasures that we just haven't seen yet.

That being said, I don't expect any new trick will simply defeat the drones, and I have no doubt that drones will be a major new factor on the battlefield for the foreseeable future. But maybe the current drone "happy time" will end. A good analogy would be the way convoys ended the "happy time" for the U-boots in WWII. Submarines continued to be effective (and still are), it just stopped being so easy.

(remainder snipped)