[Goose]

https://x.com/GorillaOSINT/status/174807...18804?s=20

Here's that video in a different tweet.

That one works, thanks! I am not sure if it was reactive armor or some kind of active system that was hit and detonated. The explosion was pretty big for just one reactive armor tile. It may be that the storm of HE created a sympathetic detonation of many such tiles. Isn't supposed to happen, but I am pretty sure the Russians didn't test this scenario :-).

---

For watching for drones over large areas far from the front, would dirigibles be appropriate?  Fill it with sensors & comms, put most of the sensor crew on the ground.  It is a big, slow target for the enemy, but hopefully it can see far enough that it can trigger a response to a threat in time.

The US has used aerostats to monitor drug smugglers. https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/frontline-...-aerostats.  It turned out to be impractical. It would be very impractical in war because almost anything can knock down an airship. Also, the radars didn't have near the performance of an AWACS. That takes lots more electric power than an airship can easily generate.

I'm guessing that satellites can't do the job, but I wouldn't know.

You are correct, they cannot. For one, LEO satellites lack the necessary persistence. For another they don't have the required radar power or antenna gain. They can do a lot of things, but not this.

It would seem the limiting defensive factor against drones would be the aircraft or missiles that respond.  A few hundred partisans spread across enemy territory could keep them occupied.  It would be impossible to distinguish armed versus unarmed drones.

Somewhat true if you are talking "quadcopter" type drones. If you are talking drones like the Shahed 136 they are in general too big for partisans to obtain, hide, transport and operate. Quadcopters can only go a limited distance and do limited damage. Larger drones can go a very long way and do significant damage. These are worth shooting down if possible. Quadcopters generally are not, unless you are the one it is attacking :-). No matter how one looks at it, a few hundred Ukrainian partisans running around in Russia can do lots of damage. They needn't bother with drones of the "quadcopter" class. Planting large bombs works much better :-)


------

Regarding the tank-IFV incident, could the tank's ability to aim (sensor or actuator) have been damaged at the start?  Or could this crew have been thrown together with prisoners or inductees that didn't get proper training?   Warm bodies to put at the front?

Could be any of the above. However, judging by the way the tank was driven it seems clear that the driver at least wasn't very skilled. It may be his vision periscope was damaged in the first attack and he couldn't see. If it was really a T-90 it also may be true they had equipment problems. The gunsight and stabilization system may have not been working to begin with, even before they got hit in the first attack. All of the above seems probable in this case :-).

[Goose]

https://x.com/GorillaOSINT/status/174807...18804?s=20

Here's that video in a different tweet.

That one works, thanks! I am not sure if it was reactive armor or some kind of active system that was hit and detonated. The explosion was pretty big for just one reactive armor tile. It may be that the storm of HE created a sympathetic detonation of many such tiles. Isn't supposed to happen, but I am pretty sure the Russians didn't test this scenario :-).

---

For watching for drones over large areas far from the front, would dirigibles be appropriate?  Fill it with sensors & comms, put most of the sensor crew on the ground.  It is a big, slow target for the enemy, but hopefully it can see far enough that it can trigger a response to a threat in time.

The US has used aerostats to monitor drug smugglers. https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/frontline-...-aerostats.  It turned out to be impractical. It would be very impractical in war because almost anything can knock down an airship. Also, the radars didn't have near the performance of an AWACS. That takes lots more electric power than an airship can easily generate.

I'm guessing that satellites can't do the job, but I wouldn't know.

You are correct, they cannot. For one, LEO satellites lack the necessary persistence. For another they don't have the required radar power or antenna gain. They can do a lot of things, but not this.

It would seem the limiting defensive factor against drones would be the aircraft or missiles that respond.  A few hundred partisans spread across enemy territory could keep them occupied.  It would be impossible to distinguish armed versus unarmed drones.

Somewhat true if you are talking "quadcopter" type drones. If you are talking drones like the Shahed 136 they are in general too big for partisans to obtain, hide, transport and operate. Quadcopters can only go a limited distance and do limited damage. Larger drones can go a very long way and do significant damage. These are worth shooting down if possible. Quadcopters generally are not, unless you are the one it is attacking :-). No matter how one looks at it, a few hundred Ukrainian partisans running around in Russia can do lots of damage. They needn't bother with drones of the "quadcopter" class. Planting large bombs works much better :-)


------

Regarding the tank-IFV incident, could the tank's ability to aim (sensor or actuator) have been damaged at the start?  Or could this crew have been thrown together with prisoners or inductees that didn't get proper training?   Warm bodies to put at the front?

Could be any of the above. However, judging by the way the tank was driven it seems clear that the driver at least wasn't very skilled. It may be his vision periscope was damaged in the first attack and he couldn't see. If it was really a T-90 it also may be true they had equipment problems. The gunsight and stabilization system may have not been working to begin with, even before they got hit in the first attack. All of the above seems probable in this case :-).