File: 1753219243995383.jpg (976 KB, 1600x1067)

976 KB JPG

>>64238938
Infantry

>>64238938
What's the alternative then? Send the IFVs in with less protection?

>>64238938
It's because IFVs are cooler than main battle tanks. They strike fear into the hearts of the enemy.

>>64238938
Read up on WW2 tank-heavy battles in Normandy when tanks had no choice but to dash around blasting at lone antitank guns, inevitably losing a few themselves.

When you have IFVs with infantry fighting alongside the tank, they can dismount the soldiers and conduct an infantry attack on such positions. They can scout and find the guns, then report back where they are and have the tanks blow them up. The quick-firing autocannon on IFVs can take out soft targets such as enemy infantry or machine-guns, enabling the friendly infantry to carry out the above tasks.

Combined arms.

In occupied areas where tanks have made deep breakthroughs, it is necessary to place forces to defend the flanks.

>>64238938
>using WW2 as an example
in WW2, tanks operated alongside motor infantry who used trucks or armored infantry who rode in half-tracks
in the case of the former, the trucks could only travel around secured areas and troops had to dismount and walk the rest of the wat
half-tracks were better but even they could only make it to about 100-200m from the engagement area and troops had to walk the rest of the way

fully enclosed APCs helped protect troops while moving around but they couldnt solve the problem of not actually entering the combat zone, with only an MG they wouldnt have been able to do much if they made contact
tanks were then limited to a tactical mobility of jogging pace, since they would not be able to travel quickly until the infantry were able to remount, which couldnt be done until the enemy was no longer in a position to engage them when they returned

the IFV was therefore a way to enable units to maneuver quickly without stopping
the addition of a heavier weapon meant that IFVs could stay close to their dismounts and they could dismount and remount even in the middle of combat

>>64238981
>the trucks could only travel around secured areas and troops had to dismount and walk the rest of the wat
>half-tracks were better but even they could only make it to about 100-200m from the engagement area
The reason being that even a light artillery and mortar bombardment would utterly fuck up lorries. A single fragment through a radiator and the lorry was toast. And by sod's law of course it would be right in the middle of important road junctions (which it was doctrine for the Germans to bombard, on general principle) and demined paths.
APCs not only transport troops and supplies, they can do it again and again and again with shrapnel pinging off the sides
Universal Carriers were loved for this reason; compared to lorries they just didn't break down

>>64238938
Your pic is exactly the reason why IFVs exist. British Infantry Tanks were deliberately designed to be slow enough to be accompanied by troops on foot. Having the soldiers be mechanised in their own fighting vehicles removes that particular consideration.

File: ghost of stepove.jpg (63 KB, 731x595)

63 KB JPG

>>64238946
>They strike fear into the hearts of the enemy
yes.

>>64238938
To protect your infantry and to support your tanks at the same time

>>64238993
>sod's
Sod's law? It isn't sod's law of me by any chance?

File: z5bt50iqdgoa1.jpg (87 KB, 1366x632)

87 KB JPG

>>64238941
incredibly stupid tactic, thats just begging to get artyed or drone striked. ive seen this picture played out in ukraine dozens of times. tanks and ifvs need to be solitary and fast, any slow down or massing leads to assured destruction.

>>64240423
>look at this small post-soviet army fighting this big post-soviet army
>IT MEANS SOMETHING

>>64240037
>I THINK THAT SOMEONE IS TRYING TO KILL ME

>>64240516
Kek

>>64240426
you definitely wouldnt get me to walk directly behind an mbt bunched up in a dense pack with 8 other dudes directly at the frontline.

>>64240423
A single vehicle gets too easily outmaneuevered by ground elements though.

>>64238938
Because tanks without infantry support are sitting ducks in a lot of cases.

>>64240423
Yes send in the slow infantry with no armor alone. That's a better option against artillery and drone overwatch you fucking retard. Or better yet, put them on dirtbikes, golf carts and razer scooters

>>64238938
Because they work.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting
We had IFVs punching out T-72s and Shilkas, complete domination.

>>64240607
But anon, how are the infantry supposed to infantry when they're holed up inside an IFV. They're more of a liability than anything at that point.

>>64240607
60 years ago maybe. nowadays its the complete opposite. a tank with infantry support is a sitting duck. whats the infantry support gonna do when drones or atgms go for the tank from miles away? the only thing they will assure is that the tanks is moving slow as fuck, so will still be there when the lancet/switchblade arrives a few minutes later.

>>64240611
>Yes send in the slow infantry with no armor alone.
iyes, because one apc or ifv getting hit is instantly an entire squad down, while a dirtbike being hit is 1 guy down. how can you not understand this?

>>64238938
Go have a read about combined armes. Sending out tank heavy formations without infantry was a terrible tactic as far back as ww1, and people figured that out.

>>64240669
Very few terrain types allow for miles of open line of sight, but you knew this, you are just posting bait.

>>64240669
>The puccians use dirtbikes because it's a superior tactic, not because they ran out of soviet shitboxes

>>64238938
>IFVs designed 40 years ago isnt 100% perfect for a specific war today that contains a warfare concept that didnt even exist 5 years ago.
Wew lad, who could have guessed that?

>>64240669
An artillery shell that hits 5 meters away form an IFV will mean that everyone inside is safe. An artillery shell that hits 5 meters from a bunch of dirt bikes would wipe out all of the bikes. How can you not understand this.

>>64240632
They are not supposed to be inside the IFV. The IFV drives them to the combat position, allows them to dismount and do their infantry things, while providing covering fire with the auto-cannon.

more shooty good

>>64240734
That's what every single professional and semi-professional discussing the war says.

>>64240632
Sure mate, if you prefer to walk 100 miles to the frontline you be my guest, but by the time you arrive anyone you intended to fight will be long gone.

>>64240754
Actually the exact opposite, if anything this war has shown that you need more protection, not less. But why not give up on body armor too when russia runs out of that.

>>64238938
Imagine a game of rock-paper-scissors but you get to use both of your hands. Throwing two different signs works better than only one.

File: 1702798163604.webm (3.49 MB, 564x360)

3.49 MB WEBM

>>64240720
>Very few terrain types allow for miles of open line of sight
a few hundred meters is enough to make infantry support useless. its not 1944 anymore, when a panzerfaust had to get very close to the targeted tank and thus had to get in range of infrantry support rifle fire.

>>64240766
>actually
Wrong
>protection
Survivability onion

File: 1746459251778260.webm (3.82 MB, 1280x720)

3.82 MB WEBM

>>64240750
>he IFV drives them to the combat position, allows them to dismount and do their infantry things, while providing covering fire with the auto-cannon.
yeah thats not how it goes down in reality.

>>64240800
Waste of dubs. Agreed, and a dirtbike is pretty far down on the survivability onion compared to an IFV

>>64238938
>Another shitty thread about how all western armies should fight wars exactly like russia does it today, despite having wastly better tech, doctrines and equipment.
Fuck off tard.

>>64240810
The onion isn't a ranking system

>>64240794
>Lone tanks without infantry support is actually great in urban warfare and the close combat we see in ukraine. Ever wondered why so many lone russian tanks get rekt?

>>64240819
No, but an IFV is actually part of the onion, unlike a dirtbike

>>64240833
the bikes protection is its speed and low rank on the target priority list. also its low cost, so you can easily spam them en masse.

>>64240833
>dirtbike
Lower visibility

>>64240754
You've been inhaling too much jenkem

>>64240845
>also its low cost, so you can easily spam them en masse

This is where western armies differ from russias. Sure, a russian conscript with one week of training is cheap as shit. A western soldier with years of training and 100k of kit will never be cheap, hence why western armies tries to minimize casualties, usually by providing superior optics, armor and firepower, aka the exact opposite of what you have on a shaky dirtbike. The IFV is the cheap part of a western squad.

>>64240849
For the operator yes. You will most liekly both see the dust plume and hear a dirt bike just as fast as you would with an APC/IFV. Sure, they might be a bit harder to score a direct hit on, but on the opposite, you wont need a direct to disable even multiple of them.

In WWII German Panzer grenadiers were supposed to work closely with the tanks. They quickly found out to stay well the fuck away from the tanks which were bullet-magnets on the battlefield.

>>64240869
you need 1 drone for an ifv. you need 10 drones for 10 dirt bikes, unless they really drive in a dense pack.

>>64240902
Yeah, and the opposite goes for artillery or larger scale weapons, where you might need several to take out one IFV and only one to take out a a squad or platoon of dirtbikefags. An IFV atleast have a chance of mounting some form of active protection system against FPV drones and simular munitions. Not every weapon on the battlefield is a drone.

>>64240794
>a few hundred meters is enough to make infantry support useless
How are you going to clean up the enemy from *over there* without infantry support?
The infantry support is more than capable of waltzing out into the enemy's foxholes and digging them out of there, with the tank's help and fire support. Combined arms.

>>64238938
>Tank threads have gone full circle now
So everyone here before belived tanks was obsolete, but now all of a sudden its the only thing you need and infantry is obsolete?

>>64240933
>How are you going to clean up the enemy from *over there* without infantry support?
artillery and drones, glide bombs. going "over there" with infantry is the most stupid thing you can do, you will be instantly spotted by surveillance drones and get artyed and droned. the tank is useless because it wont see shit from 1500meters away and getting into the hot zone to remove some injured guys in a hole will just get the tank killed without it even accomplishing anything.

File: 1737903258666894.webm (3.96 MB, 1920x1080)

3.96 MB WEBM

>>64240949
>without it even accomplishing anything.
Closing in on and destroying the enemy enables maneuver.
You need maneuver if you don't want to fight a hopeless trench war that lasts for 5 years.
Maneuver is the difference between a successful war prosecuted by a first world country, and whatever Russia is doing right now.

>>64240962
>if you don't want to fight a hopeless trench war that lasts for 5 years.
yeah your can "maneuver" and lose in 1 year instead of lasting for 5. genius!

>>64240423
Weren’t tanks getting ambushed with Javelins and NLAWs because of lack of infantry support?

File: 1755153470947492.webm (2.97 MB, 588x456)

2.97 MB WEBM

>>64240973
Maneuver is still what defines victory. Just because the two shithole countries are too weak to do it right now, doesn't mean it isn't what matters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kyiv_(2022)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Kharkiv_counteroffensive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Kherson_counteroffensive

>>64240983
no. what should the infantry support do against an atgm being launched out of cover/concealment from 800meter away? they probably saw a flash in the distant woods and then just got ACKed.

>>64240949
>artillery and drones
Can't clean out buildings and man the trenches

>>64241006
Oh I don't know, maybe they could shoot at them?

>>64241006
I know for a fact several of those ambushes were a lot closer than 800m

>>64240962
Comrade, Iraq is 95% featureless desert with zero cover, there is a reason multiple long-distance tank kill records happened in iraq.
Ukraine is dense urban areas with lots of vegetation in-between, and ukraine spend YEARS building fortifications like trenches, deeply layers to prepare for this war.

Iraq was full of IQ70 arabs with zero motivation to fight, they abandoned their posts as soon as the americans closed in most of the time.
Ukrainians are IQ90 fanatics who externalize all their problems onto russia and have visceral, irrational hatred for russians.

To even think that these "wars" are both in the same category shows either profound dishonesty, or total cluelessness. Maybe both.

t. russian shill
+15 rub

File: 1750709238385552.webm (3.94 MB, 576x848)

3.94 MB WEBM

>>64241030
>Ukraine is dense urban areas with lots of vegetation in-between
Ukraine is a flat steppe and has been considered ideal armored warfare country for as long as armored warfare has been relevant. The vast majority of the frontline is open fields and small villages of ~30 people before the war.

>To even think that these "wars" are both in the same category shows either profound dishonesty, or total cluelessness. Maybe both.
You're right. Iraq was a far greater accomplishment. It was on the other side of the world, and not next door like Ukraine is to Russia.
The war was so successful, it destroyed almost all trust in Soviet style militaries. But I guess they're similar in that manner, since Ukraine also destroyed trust in the Soviet style (Russian) military.

>>64240996
that wasnt maneuver, that was suprising an unprepared enemy. good luck with that in year 4 of the war after every part of the frontline has been probed multiple times already and both sides know each other very well.

>>64240996
Why does Israel take ~2 years in Gaza? Why can't they maneuver?

>>64241030
>Ukrainians are IQ90 fanatics who externalize all their problems onto russia and have visceral, irrational hatred for russians.
>In May 2009, a poll held by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology in Ukraine said that 96% of respondents were positive about Russians as an ethnic group, 93% respected the Russian Federation and 76% respected the Russian establishment.
>According to the Brookings Institution after Ukraine regained its independence, only a small minority of nationalists expressed strong anti-Russian views; the majority hoped to have good relations with Russia. In 2014, after the Russian annexation of Crimea, the attitude to Russia changed sharply. In April 2017, a poll by Sociological group "RATING" found that 57% of respondents expressed a "very cold" or "cold" attitude toward Russia while 17% expressed a "very warm" or "warm" attitude. In February 2019, 77% of Ukrainians had a positive attitude towards Russians, 57% of Ukrainians had a positive view of Russia, but only 13% of Ukrainians had positive attitude towards the Russian government.
>Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, sentiments towards Russia have enormously declined. In March 2022, 97% of Ukrainians said they had an unfavourable view of Russian President Putin, with a further 81% saying they had a very unfavourable or somewhat unfavourable view of the Russian people. However, 65% of Ukrainians agreed that "despite our differences there is more that unites ethnic Russians living in Ukraine and Ukrainians than divides us."
They were some of the most pro-Russian people on Earth until Russia tried to meddle their internal affairs and annexed their land.

>>64241030
>ukraine spend YEARS building fortifications
cope

>>64240669
>>64240734
>You see Ivan, if we send our soldats one by one we might lose 50 men, but we'll never lose a platoon

>>64240808
we have hundreds of videos of Ukrainians using Bradleys to do exactly that Brad zips up to enemy position, firing the bushmaster on the way in to surpress, dismounts its stick of men, continueing to surpress, then withdraws to the rear while supressing away from its dismounts.

Like over and over, doing exactly its intended troops delivery and support role.
Then it either dashes back in to pull them if the attack fails or rolls up on the now ukrainians position to remount them and do it again.

IFV/Mech Infantry is the modern version of Dragoons.

File: bad dismount 2.webm (2.2 MB, 1280x720)

2.2 MB WEBM

Pure fucking hell

>>64241006
If that's the tactical danger then you send the infantry 800 meters ahead of the tank.

>>64238938
Because they are small, move fast, and carry shitloads of firepower to help back your infantry?

>>64238954
It fascinates me when I interact with the kinds of people who think Combined Arms is fake and that drones make tanks and IFVs obsolete.

>>64240423
Speak of the devil...

File: wolf pack.jpg (514 KB, 1920x1080)

514 KB JPG

>>64238938
It seems you still don't understand.

File: wolf pack2.jpg (634 KB, 2736x1824)

634 KB JPG

>>64241290

>>64240902
Anon, the point of an attack isn't to have all your men die in a way that's almost imperceptibly less favorable to the enemy.

>>64241050
>Unless the battle is akin to leaping into a woodchipper dick first and dying in utter agony to no benefit whatsoever, it doesn't count.
Do you ever stop to consider that this thought process may contribute to the multipolar world's habit of sticking its dick into woodchippers and dying?

>>64240902
You don't even need a drone
You could kill half the bikes with a machine gun

Driving with hundreds of meters of distance between each bike is a good way to lose cohesion as each rider loses track of each other
Defeating the attack before it reaches the gather point
If you are dismounting hundreds of meters from the combat zone and then walking the rest of the way, then you could have used a truck or APC and save on gas

File: 1677487798221743.jpg (347 KB, 1079x806)

347 KB JPG

>>64241294
The tiny Bradley in your pic makes me want to have a single man tank with an M240 or M82 as a main weapon.

>>64242361
That'd be what's called a Tankette.

>>64241030
>externalize all their problems onto russia
Yeah, like 'why is there an army invading my country' and 'who keeps bombing my hospitals'.

>>64240949
>it wont see shit from 1500meters away
This is the case with Russian bargain bin thermals (if they even have them), not with western ones

>>64242724
90s era thermals were capable of target acquisition in excess of 2000m
The issue was target identification, they had no trouble hitting friendly vehicles out beyond 1500m

The first thing they did after the war was install better IFF

File: Reaction 919.png (55 KB, 184x184)

55 KB PNG

>>64240423
Ziggers are a fascinating breed
>Russia are pants on head retarded and incapable so that means everyone else are as retarded and as incapable as russians

File: Ukraine-Counteroffensive_(...).jpg (994 KB, 2560x1517)

994 KB JPG

>>64241290
>a few minutes later...

>>64243043
Posting the same picture over and over and over again. Fucking ziggers.

>>64243055
it shows how that massed ifv and mbt combo isnt as good as boomer generals think.

>>64243043
Zisters, explain to me why there are no dead bodies in that picture. Are the westoid equipment so good that it can only be disabled, not destroyed?

>>64243065
It shows that Ukraine does not have the same military capacity as NATO. They didn't have air superiority and they didn't have an ample supply of a variety of missiles at the time. They also didn't have any AWACs planes. It does not show that tanks and IFVs are obsolete, you dumb fucking zigger.

>>64243080
what good is a tactic that can only be used when you have total air superiority and an "ample supply of a variety of missiles at the time" and awacs etc. etc.? obviously not that good.

Don't bother Russian sub humans are incapable of thinking deeply. Let them keep believing their way works so they die out faster

>>64243099
yea, having real military is good. Unlike zigger 3 day SMO thinking they had real military.

>>64240850
Oh, so the Ukrainians telling us this are wrong, the guys who count Russian tanks are wrong, the US army's think tank is wrong, the oldest defence think tank in the world is wrong, but you're right, you clever little special one you

>>64240869
>You will most liekly both see the dust plume and hear a dirt bike just as fast as you would with an APC/IFV
Wrong

>>64243099
Combined arms, you fucking retard. Any -one- system can't do it all, that's why you need multiple different systems to cover each others weaknesses. Ziggers are really subhuman, inbred, HIV infected, homosexual trash.

>>64243099
>What good is a tactic that can only be used when you have [the preferred circumstances for that tactic]
Probably pretty good if you have the capability to create those circumstances.

>>64238941
What purpose is infantry? Just use drones to support the tank, or better yet just use drones.

>>64243125
>>64243140

the german generals told the ukies to go full in with an armoured push onto a prepared and heavily monitored defensive line and directly through a minefield. they really thought this would work even without air superiority and even without fire superiority. they are thoroughly retarded and living in a dream world.

>>64240746
if the dirt bikes are scattered 100 meters apart they are safer than any IFV.

>>64243169
infantry on dirt bikes are modern days dragoons.

>>64240833
Speed is 100% a survivability tactic.

>>64243146
Look at some point it's on you for taking advice from Germans on how to push into Russia. They don't have the best track record.

>>64243107
I mean to an extent he has a point. What good are tactics that 95% of the world cant use. You think the next india pakistan war will be done by land air doctrine?

>>64243232
They're great, for the people that can use them. Those who can't probably shouldn't try.

>>64243244
Ok so its USA tactivs and non USA tactics then. Even the chink cant rely on 100% air superiority over Taiwan

>>64243169
if dirt bikes are scattered 100m apart, then your entire platoon is taking up an entire square kilometer of space while the move
and maintaining any kind of cohesion while they drive so far apart is impossible, the platoon leader could be killed without anyone noticing until they are balls deep

and even if the entire platoon moved safely, its gonna be hard to group them all back together to actually attack anything
youll spend all day just looking for all the rest of the platoon and hoping none of them died in a ditch because he saw a ramp and couldnt resist

and without any armor, you literally cant get within a kilometer of the enemy anyways, every machine gun in the area is going to go off
so you arrive a kilometer away from the fighting, spend a couple of hours waiting for everyone to arrice and then spend another hour just walking to the combat zone and by this time the enemy has mortars trained on your position

>>64240983
Those infantry were getting demolished by Javelin ambushes while sitting in their vehicles no?

>>64243321
the frontline is very sparsely manned, the ukies only have a handful of guys at the direct line of contact, so even just a few guys infiltrating their line is a threat.

>>64243379
One drone spots your biker gang platoon, one fire mission that doesn't even have to be particularly accurate as long as they estimate your speed right rips through your unprotected asses, cripples your bikes, possibly both at once.

>>64241257
>It fascinates me when I interact with the kinds of people who think Combined Arms is fake
Quite

And when some larperator thinks he's got the key to modern warfare that nobody else in the entire NATO military has figured out

>>64243379
>the frontline is very sparsely manned
this is literally the usecase of an armored vehicle, since it wont be stopped by enemy machine guns
driving unarmored motorcycles is a good way to get stopped by even a thin line of defense, because machine guns and mortars represent an existential threat to them in a way they do not even to a lowly BTR

motorcycle riders as a replacement for APCs is stupid
the argument that its because they cant be droned is stupid, because machine guns exist and the enemy has a lot more of them than drones

>>64243099
ok so imagine you do have the air support and missiles and surveillace to neutralize the enemy long range fire support and drones
what is your plan to actually take and hold ground and remove entrenched enemy troops? are you going to have your soldiers walk everywhere? are you going to flatten everything with bombs and call it a day? no, you use tanks and mech infantry

>>64243387
recon is always dangerous. someone at some point has to probe the enemy line.

>>64243455
using bikes turns near-certain death to all-but-guaranteed death
which has been the primary use of motorbikes, not as APC replacements but as bait for ukranian artillery

>>64243455
Most countries do not consider 'send two dudes with a blocking unit behind them to their deaths until some of them make it through in a blind spot' to be an acceptable use of manpower even if it does, through a contrived enough lens, resemble recon.
Throughout history the death of your own forces has generally been considered an unfortunate reality to be minimised more than an objective.

>>64243406
>this is literally the usecase of an armored vehicle, since it wont be stopped by enemy machine guns
a tank gets spotted 20km away from the frontline when it rolls off the train/trailer and will be continuously monitored all the way to the frontline where a welcoming party already waits for it. some drones, one of the plentiful variety of atgms that ukraine has, some sneakily deployed mines and its over. the ukies did this just 2 days ago with an armored collumn that tried to reach the frontline in pokrovsk. the russian tanks and ifvs got stopped before they even showed up at the frontline.

>>64240423
>thats just begging to get artyed or drone striked.
in a non-peer conflict the other side can decisively deny the other side the ability to do that at scale

>>64243467
once victory is achieved the losses will end. pretty simple logic.

>>64243520
Yes, and this is also true if you fight your war any way other than zerg tactics.

>>64243507
>a tank gets spotted 20km away from the frontline when it rolls off the train/trailer and will be continuously monitored all the way to the frontline where a welcoming party already waits for it.
and motorcylces do not require any kind of special attention
a buck private sees a bunch of idiots zooming across a field and opens up with his MG and kills half of them

or, as has been done repeatedly since bike units have been deployed, they are sent out specifically to get killed so that the armored units can go out and actually do something worthwhile
that is all bike units are good for outside of recon, dying

>>64243455
>recon is always dangerous. someone at some point has to probe the enemy line.
what russians are doing is not probing or human wave attack, they're too poor for that, they're employing atomized human mist attacks

>>64243554
NTA but the ziggers paid in mobik blood to prove what you're trying to disprove with your mouth
they threw tanks at the Ukes in the Donetsk front for all of 2023, suffered losses equivalent to the Kyiv thunder run, and didn't move the frontline
then they used infantry to infiltrate through various kinds of terrain and had some success (such as it is)
so it WORKS

you're using the same logic of people who declared categorically that Su-30s beat F-35s because stealth (aka visibility) is a meme, just apply more gun / armour, concealment doesn't matter
except this is even more retarded because the ground has far more ways to hide infantry movement - forests, bushes, hills, valleys - than in the air

>>64243610
>they threw tanks at the Ukes in the Donetsk front for all of 2023, suffered losses equivalent to the Kyiv thunder run, and didn't move the frontline
because their war machine is qualitatively inferior and is unable to bring effective force to bear down on enemy in concentrated manner, that doesn't disprove maneuver warfare as a concept

>>64243618
>that doesn't disprove maneuver warfare as a concept
I agree, because that's not what I said, you jumped all the way to that conclusion

>>64243622
its kinda the implication you're pushing by the comparison you're doing

>>64243625
no, it really isn't
using tanks or not using tanks has zero bearing on manoeuvre warfare

>>64243634
you say using tanks I say pouring tanks down the drain

>>64240983
Yes. That's the main reason Russia had such disastrous collapses in the early stages of the war and why it temporarily looked like Ukraine might overrun them entirely. The Battalion Tactical Group is designed to be a core of regulars (largely vehicle operators) with reservists mobilized on demand to fill them out and act as supporting infantry. A cost saving measire, basically. However because Russia wanted the element of surprise they didn't mobilize before the war and just chucked the BTGs in with regulars only and no infantry support. Thus the massive losses. If they'd actually had infantry with them they would have been much better protected due to having a screening force that could take out the small anti-tank teams.

The funny thing is there was and wasn't an element of surprise anyways. The USA saw what they were up to before it happened and was screaming at Ukraine to get their shit together and telling the world it was about to go down, and everyone just bought Russia's "xaxaxa amerikan warmongers, we are not going to attack!!!" bullshit. So Russia probably could have filled out the BTGs with no loss of surprise anyways.

>>64243645
>The USA saw what they were up to before it happened and was screaming at Ukraine to get their shit together and telling the world it was about to go down, and everyone just bought
even the Ukes
on the 22nd they had just finished exercises and thought the crisis was over when suddenly they got the "SHIT'S ON IN 24 HOURS THIS AIN'T NO DRILL" alarm

>>64243641
whatever
manoeuvre warfare principles still apply whether you're riding tanks, Humvees or horses

>>64243610
>NTA but the ziggers paid in mobik blood to prove what you're trying to disprove with your mouth
russian tactic is not to replace APCs with motorbikes
motorbikes are sacrificial units to draw fire while APCs and tanks actually make the gains

>so it WORKS
their artillery,.tanks, and APCs work
the motorbike technically work, in that they succesfully trade one soldier for 1 Ukrainian shell which the russians deem a good deal

but their successes in the east have been primarily been built on small-scale encirclements using armored units while motorbikes take of massive losses to preserve their actual striking force

>because the ground has far more ways to hide infantry movement
motorbikes have attracted massive artillery barrages everytime they show up
the russians count on this because thats the main purpose of their motorbikes
so you really cant hide motorbikes

>>64243645
>a screening force
that would have slowed down the offensive to walking pace... every single meter would have had to be cleared by infantry before a tank rolls in. they would have never gotten the south by doing this. the ukies would have had plenty of time to react. and a lot of people didnt believe the american intel because the force the russians had assembled was far too small to take on such a large country as ukraine... which turned out to be correct, but then ukraine couldnt exploit that weakness either and didnt manage to decisively beat them even though they had the numbers advantage for several months.

>>64243522
The Overmind is more careful with his lings than Gerasimov is with his uncubed men

>>64238938
Saturation of the target area to draw some fire away from tanks/higher value targets.

>>64243694
>motorbikes are sacrificial units to draw fire while APCs and tanks actually make the gains
nope

according to the experts, the Russian playbook is this: motorbike and foot infantry infiltrate forward as far as they can, which is further than tanks and IFVs can make it
then they charge forward and take cover wherever they can, which is easier for small numbers of infantry than for large armoured vehicles
the process continues until a large infantry force is built up near the Ukrainian lines because the AFU doesn't have enough fire support assets to kill them all fast enough
in addition, the infantry can find weak spots in the front line, which is thinly-held; and call in their own drones, artillery, and airstrikes
Russian glide bombs in particular are very useful in taking out Ukrainian infantry strongpoints
once the Ukrainian defences are cleared in this manner, Russian tanks, APCs, EW and SAM support units advance to consolidate the position and defend it against Ukrainian counter-attacks

in essence, a modern Russian version of WW1 bite-and-hold tactics, or WW2 IJA infantry tactics

>small-scale encirclements using armored units
nope
>motorbikes have attracted massive artillery barrages everytime they show up
yes, but not enough
and they attract less fire than tanks, which is why Russian tanks aren't being used for the breakthrough
>you really cant hide motorbikes
they can be hidden better than tanks can; they're smaller and can make better use of less cover and concealment, they're quieter, they kick up less dust

>>64243796
>nope
literally how they were breaking through the east

>and they attract less fire than tanks
their entire purpose is to eat ukranian shells so they dont hit the tanks

> they're smaller and can make better use of less cover and concealment
and they barely make any use of that in favor of getting hit by artilelry anyways

motorbike units are useless for anything other than recon
and russians just use them as meatshields to force ukranine to expend their ammunition

>>64243806
>literally how they were breaking through the east
nope
you should read up on what actually happened instead of trying to use your brain to imagine what did

>their entire purpose is to eat ukranian shells so they dont hit the tanks
>russians just use them as meatshields to force ukranine to expend their ammunition
yes, but they're also more survivable
these things are not exclusionary

>they barely make any use of that in favor of getting hit by artilelry anyways
not enough

>motorbike units are useless for anything other than recon
nope

>>64243819
>yes, but they're also more survivable
they have no survivability

>not enough
artillery nukes them pretty much daily

>nope
their only other use is being meatshields

>>64243831
>https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/drones-drive-battlefield-motorcycle-tactical-shift

>they have no survivability
>artillery nukes them pretty much daily
"Small assault groups – often numbering between a dozen and a hundred riders – can move quickly over rough terrain, giving drone operators and artillery spotters little time to intercept. Furthermore, neutralising a single motorcycle typically requires the same resources as stopping a larger-capacity armoured vehicle, making them far more cost-effective and tactically elusive."

>their only other use is being meatshields
"These vehicles are now being used not just for assault but also for logistics, medical evacuation, reconnaissance and electronic warfare support, particularly in terrain where heavy armour is ineffective or too easily targeted."
...
"The Ukrainian military, too, has embraced the concept. The 425th Separate Assault Regiment announced its first motorcycle assault unit in May 2024 after ‘hundreds of hours’ of training, reporting its first successful mission – a night-time incursion into the Kursk region – later that month."

of course, if you think you are smarter and more well-informed than the RUSI and their Ukrainian sources, by all means, contact somebody and publish your findings

>>64243844
>russians coping about their motorbike units
machine guns are vastly cheaper than RPGs

>>64243847
>russians coping
>The Ukrainian military, too, has embraced the concept. The 425th Separate Assault Regiment announced its first motorcycle assault unit in May 2024 after ‘hundreds of hours’ of training, reporting its first successful mission – a night-time incursion into the Kursk region – later that month

>machine guns are vastly cheaper than RPGs
but it's not possible to gun down 10 mobiks on bikes in a single burst, whereas an RPG can incinerate a BMP with 10 mobiks in it

>>64240423
the only place more dangerous than being inside an armoured vehicle in Ukraine is being outside an armoured vehicle in Ukraine

>>64243853
>but it's not possible to gun down 10 mobiks on bikes in a single burst
you already have a machine gun with you and its an automatic weapon that can easily fire multiple bursts
and the moment those bikes start driving in every direction, the odds of them ever actually regrouping and continuing the attack is essentially zero

>whereas an RPG can incinerate a BMP with 10 mobiks in it
but its also resistant to MG fire, necessitating that you shoulder your weapon and reach for a specialist weapon to deal with it while its shooting back at you

>>64243844
You're grossly misrepresenting what that article says
>However, while motorcycles and ATVs excel as mobility platforms, they remain ineffectual as combat platforms compared to traditional armour – rather than acting like traditional cavalry, effective units operate more along the lines of mounted infantry. Tanks and armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs) still provide unmatched protection, firepower, and survivability in high-intensity combat. The challenge is not replacing armour but rebalancing its role within a broader combined arms approach. Motorcycles may allow troops to traverse contested terrain or avoid detection, but they cannot substitute for the brute force and staying power of well-supported mechanised formations.

>>64243831
>they have no survivability
Dispersion is survivability, anon.

>>64243867
>the odds of them ever actually regrouping and continuing the attack is essentially zero
very good
you are clearly an expert of war, and better-informed than all these others
go to the AFU and help them win the war with your findings

>>64243875
>You're grossly misrepresenting what that article says
nope
I never said the article proves that bikes will replace tanks. The paragraph you cite is simply the article emphasising that just because motorbikes worked under those circumstances, it doesn't mean that motorbikes are THE FUTURE!! which some mongoloid will inevitably attempt to claim
(just look at dronefags)

>they cannot substitute for the brute force and staying power of well-supported mechanised formations
is perfectly accurate
however, neither the Ukrainians nor the Russians are operating
>well-supported mechanised formations
by NATO standards

the article makes it clear in the preceding paragraphs how motorbike infantry have succeeded in infiltration-type assaults and overwhelming Ukrainian fire support, where tanks have not
exactly as I said earlier

besides, this is a short summary article. RUSI and other experts have discussed this tactic in more detail.

>>64243893
>Dispersion is survivability, anon.
dispersion is a bad thing that trades speed and cohesion for survivability
if you need dispersion to generate survivability, you are at a disadvantage state to begin with

File: 852326c0-f611-46f9-b5f3-a(...).jpg (69 KB, 1000x668)

69 KB JPG

combat bikes are the future.

>>64240983
Dude I miss the opening days of the war when endless Russki tanks and BTRs were getting javelined and NLAW'd.

>>64243146
>go full in with an armoured push onto a prepared and heavily monitored defensive line and directly through a minefield.
Kursk kesselschlacht 2

>>64242752
If that was the worst of it.
really it's
>Ziggers are servile subhuman animals that love to rape torture and steal, women and children included, so they think everyone else is a subhuman pos like them out to get them, so they are justified.

Fucking trash

>>64244296
>>64242752
>can we talk about /k/ shit like the interplay between IFV's and MBT's?
>NO! I NEED TO SPAZ OUT ABOUT ZIGGERS!

>>64238938
Force multiplier and to fight infantry armed with anti-vehicle weapons?

>>64244093
do you remember the webms of Stugna and RPO and LAW shots?
now all we get is drone drops

>>64241067
Honestly if Russia hadn't chimped out in 2014 the Pendulum would probably have swung back the other way and Ukraine would have elected their own Fico or Orban to go along with Putin's proposals.

>>64244693
>Orban to go along with Putin's proposals.
Orban is such a great IQ test. Anyone who suggests that he's a stooge is someone who is too stupid to look up the guys history.

>>64244693
Russia chimped out BECAUSE the Ukes voted someone else in

>>64244693
>>64244733
>can we talk about /k/ shit like the interplay between IFV's and MBT's?
>NO! MY ONLY INTEREST IS RUSSIA AND UKRAINE
Tourists go home.

Are IFVs a good replacement for light tanks, or is there a spot for -30 tons armored vehicles with big guns?

File: CV90120-BAE-Systems.jpg (625 KB, 1600x488)

625 KB JPG

>>64245850
No one is in a hurry to buy light tanks, the use case seems to be niche globally. You might as well just use an IFV with a missile launcher rather than have another vehicle, though missiles is not the same as a 120 mm gun with FGSFDS and HE shells. War Thunder is where they will stay for now.
>120 my beloved

>>64242361
I have a strange fascination with tanks with trailers

>>64238938
I thought in modern combat IFVs were teamed with tanks for having better visual equipment

>>64245850
>Are IFVs a good replacement for light tanks,
the M3 bradley has been used as a light tank for decades now and it was superior to actual light tanks

>>64243321
>if dirt bikes are scattered 100m apart, then your entire platoon is taking up an entire square kilometer of space while the move
And getting fucked up mines kek

>>64241221
and then they get wrecked by machine guns/mines/arty. If tanks can't operate without a screen of infantry 2kilometers in front of them at all times they aren't very useful