(07-17-2023, 05:02 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Drones have become effective tools for identifying mines (which is half the battle), but eliminating them as dangers and roadblocks to advances is another issue. One reason to use cluster munitions is to help clear these mines. They can be targeted to areas with heavy mine concentrations, then drones can check same area again, and if cleared, advance can be made. This is a much better option than sending out mine sweepers ahead of advancing forces.
OF, it would be good if you could link to some references to this application of DPICM. AFAIK, it isn't something that NATO has used or planned to use. The grenades would most probably detonate any mine it landed directly above, but a DPICM barrage doesn't saturate the ground with grenades. There would be lots of "holes" where the mines are unaffected. Line charges are used in some cases to rapidly clear routes through mined areas, but they explode linearly along their entire length. You have to "stay in the furrow" to be safe.
Drones can certainly spot a poorly laid minefield, or one laid on the surface by artillery. However, Russia has had almost a year to install their minefields. After a good rain, it is pretty difficult to visually spot a minefield placed in open country. You really need mine resistant detection vehicles and/or a mine clearance team to sweep the area. Relying on what you see will get people killed. Of course, if you can see it, you know you must clear/avoid it. FWIW, I would much rather have a mine clearance unit in front of me if I can. Ukraines problems are 1) only about 15% of the promised de-mining equipment has been delivered, and 2) you need to protect your clearance people from artillery and air strikes. Ukraine can do the first pretty well but not the second.
Quote:It also looks like UAF are as much as possible attacking flanks of Russians in order to avoid frontal clashes. It really would be nice to see UAF have a big operation to drop forces behind Russian lines. There would be a lot fewer mines attacking those lines from behind.
True. It is undoubtedly true that Ukraine is making a methodical advance, not one that attacks without regard to losses. The losses will be high enough as it is. There are also just a lot of Russians that need killing. The sheer size of the task makes it difficult to execute. The good news is that even Russia doesn't have enough troops to be strong everywhere.
The bad news is that Ukraine is back to the old WW I problem. If you methodically advance through the minefields / trenches of your opponent, he has plenty of time to build/reinforce the line of defense you are attacking and the second line behind that. If, OTOH you crash through without regard to casualties, you weaken your forces to the point they can't take the second line of defenses that is already in place and you can't reinforce any faster than you opponent. This produces a stalemate. What Ukraine is trying to accomplish is to apply enough pressure in many places such that Russia runs out of fresh troops to commit. This creates a situation that any breakthrough by Ukraine will mostly hit air, and we saw last year what that can produce.
Russian is clearly being "stretched" and having problems. Ukraine is also attacking the Russian supply lines with significant success. There is some hope all this will work. There would be lots more hope if Russian air could be suppressed so it could not stop a breakthrough all by itself.
Quote:On another note, Russia is claiming it will use cluster munitions if Ukraine does. But isn't the truth that Russia has already used cluster munitions, not only on UAF, but civilian areas?
That is indeed true, at least as I understand it. They are saying what the are because there is nothing else they can really threaten. The fact they already do it is just a "feature".
