World News

Compared to a golf-cart or dirt bike, a Ladoga is much better-suited for mechanized warfare.

I don't know. Like, yes, by definition, a dirt bike isn't what a mechanized unit uses; that's a motorized vehicle. But...I think that there's a fair question of how well the roles can match.

Specifically for nuclear war, then yeah, obviously the Ladoga is better. It's got environmental protection.

But I'm not sure that light armor will necessarily have the role it has over past decades in the future.

The point of light armor is to deal with rifle and machine gun bullets -- as in ambushes -- and near-miss artillery fragments. It will work well for that.

I don't know what portion of actual damage to Russian forces is presently coming from those, though. I mean, if the armor isn't stopping what's killing the thing, it might not buy much. It won't stop top-attack ATGMs. It won't stop drones carrying heavier munitions. It won't stop guided munitions like GMLRS or guided artillery.

If we can provide enough tube artillery and shells, that might change. But if warfare here is characterized by mostly highly-accurate, long-range weapons capable of penetrating the armor that vehicles have...that armor might not provide much protection.

For an analog, think of how it used to be common for individual soldiers to wear heavy armor up until things like crossbows and firearms, long-range weapons that could penetrate it, killed it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_armour

As firearms became better and more common on the battlefield, the utility of full armour gradually declined, and full suits became restricted to those made for jousting which continued to develop.

It's not impossible that the same phenomenon could affect vehicle armor. Maybe not all vehicles, but it might make it a lot-less-valuable to have light armor.

And unarmored vehicles tend to be faster, which helps limit their time in a dangerous zone.

I think that a dirt bike, which might be good as a vehicle for a single person, maybe two, has some serious limitations -- it can't load up anyone if they do get hurt. It can't pull towed equipment. It has a limited ability to carry supplies.

But it can also traverse trails that four-wheel vehicles cannot. It can be easily hidden. It is inexpensive and can be easily provided in large numbers. It is light and can be delivered via air. Many people each on a dirt bike are less of a concentrated target than a group of people in an APC; against a weapon that light armor doesn't stop, the dirt bike may be more resilient than light armor.

In World War II, there were some very substantial successes that various militaries pulled off with bicycle infantry, which is pretty analogous; Japan's rapid movement in the Battle of Singapore is probably the poster child for that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Singapore

The capture of Singapore resulted in the largest British surrender in its history.

Conventional British military thinking was that the Japanese forces were inferior and characterised that the Malayan jungles as "impassable"; the Japanese were repeatedly able to use it to their advantage to outflank hastily established defensive lines.

Despite their numerical inferiority, they advanced down the Malayan Peninsula, overwhelming the defences. The Japanese forces also used bicycle infantry and light tanks, allowing swift movement through the jungle. The Commonwealth having thought the terrain made them impractical, had no tanks and only a few armoured vehicles, which put them at a severe disadvantage.[25]

E-bikes can be very quiet.

There have been a history of unarmored vehicles that we've used in combat. And I don't mean the Jeep, but in contemporary times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Patrol_Vehicle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Strike_Vehicle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interim_Fast_Attack_Vehicle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1161_Growler