A major aim of Kremlin’s war was to guarantee security for Russian warships operating from the Sevastopol base in the Black Sea. That is in ruins as its fleet retreats from an opponent without a navy.
Especially given that Ukraine doesn’t even really have a navy. For all intends and purposes Russia should’ve been able to dominate thr Blacksea with their naval dominance.
This is an indication of modern warfare: small guided munitions are extremely effective and the days of “force projection” using large vehicles may be over.
This war is going to completely reshape military doctrine this decade. We haven’t really had a war where both sides can utilize state-of-the-art technology since, what, Vietnam? A lot has changed since then, particularly in terms of computational power.
Actually, I think the Russians have avoided deploying their Armatas or Su-57s in any meaningful capacity… so to some degree yes, but I don’t believe that they’d have any meaningful impact given the shift in military doctrine towards swarms of drones. Russia also hasn’t deployed their conventional ICBMs and scramjet missiles for obvious reasons (because a conventional ICBM strike is indistinguishable from a nuclear one).
Meanwhile, we’ve seen state-of-the-art tanks in the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2A4 achieve no success on the battlefield and the Patriot system incapable of intercepting drones hundreds of kilometers into Ukrainian territory. We’re yet to see how the F-16 will fare and probably won’t see F-16s in combat until mid-2024.
The most effective weapons in this conflict have been short-range guided munitions: HIMARS, Javelins, FABs, Lancets, Shaheds, FPV drones.
Especially given that Ukraine doesn’t even really have a navy. For all intends and purposes Russia should’ve been able to dominate thr Blacksea with their naval dominance.
This is an indication of modern warfare: small guided munitions are extremely effective and the days of “force projection” using large vehicles may be over.
This war is going to completely reshape military doctrine this decade. We haven’t really had a war where both sides can utilize state-of-the-art technology since, what, Vietnam? A lot has changed since then, particularly in terms of computational power.
We still haven’t had a war with both sides having state of the art technology, or has Russia been hiding something this whole time?
Actually, I think the Russians have avoided deploying their Armatas or Su-57s in any meaningful capacity… so to some degree yes, but I don’t believe that they’d have any meaningful impact given the shift in military doctrine towards swarms of drones. Russia also hasn’t deployed their conventional ICBMs and scramjet missiles for obvious reasons (because a conventional ICBM strike is indistinguishable from a nuclear one).
Meanwhile, we’ve seen state-of-the-art tanks in the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2A4 achieve no success on the battlefield and the Patriot system incapable of intercepting drones hundreds of kilometers into Ukrainian territory. We’re yet to see how the F-16 will fare and probably won’t see F-16s in combat until mid-2024.
The most effective weapons in this conflict have been short-range guided munitions: HIMARS, Javelins, FABs, Lancets, Shaheds, FPV drones.
Never heard of it. Is it near Blackpool? \fp
Here’s a surprisingly relavent clip from a standup routine.
Well this is an internet game changer