In the UK at least, a lot of sub stations serving towns seem to be surrounded by civilian buildings and wouldn’t be easy to defend from targeted attack. National grid switching stations are seen in open countryside and would need a lot of containers to protect them - and would still be vulnerable to anything dropping from above.

Thinking back to Iraq, wasn't one of the major targets during the first phase of Desert Storm civilian infrastructure, including power generation and sub-stations?

I remember the crew room TV showing those initial "shock and awe" attacks and I'm sure a fair number of the non-military targets were power distribution. Long time ago now, though, and we were very busy at the time (on trials unconnected with that operation) so I was just diving in for a coffee before heading back out to the range. For some reason I have a vivid memory from that time that is almost a series of still photos of that part of the GW1.

IIRC ffrom my AFOPS posture, a lot of the targets were Mil comms and supporting (power) infrastructure. A subtle difference to RF attacks on … pure civil power.

`Yes, Civil power is an illegal target UNLESS there is a definite and concrete military advantage to attacking it.

Wasn't this the case in GW1? I believe (but stand to be corrected) that a fair bit of Iraq's C2 was located in, or very near, civilian infrastructure, and was using civilian power, so became a legitimate target. Not so sure about the TV and radio transmission towers that were taken out, but doing that has been a feature of war since WWII.

Yes, but all measures must be taken to minimise collateral damage ,UNLESS, the target is being used against the Geneva Convention in order to prevent an attack. ie, storing weapons in a religious building removes the Geneva Convention protection of that building. Same with Comms or power, but systems analysis must identify the most vulnerable point with the least collateral. We have got used to low, or no, collateral, and becomes a massive shock when adversaries ignore the Geneva Convention.

While I agree, you are forgetting that most countries would have the ability to strike back with similar or greater effect.

We have just given Sea Kings to Ukraine. How long before the west has run out of old kit and has to start donating new stuff? Or does the west have a plentiful supply of military tat (for wont of a better phrase).

Just a nuance on that: I’m sure Ukraine has the ability to strike back but not the “permission”. I think they should be given that permission now, using any kit they have or have been given by western countries. Why should they continue to fight with one arm tied behind their backs ?

Mk4 or SAR SeaKings are hardly 'tat' in a context that requires troop mobilty, forward supply or casevac. They may be old tech but they're reliable and capable in their role, hardly different from the comparable Mil8 etc both sides are already using.
Just a few more. Surely we have a couple of squadrons of Junglies in mothball at Colerne or wherever?
They served us well for decades - and how? - but can't we dig them out now for a final blaze of glory?

Wasn't one of the objectives in WWII the Mohne Dam?

And yes, post WWII changes to the Geneva Convention have made such a target illegal. Releasing forces over which one has no further control ie, water or nuclear material. It was NOT illegal in WW2!.

Good point, but it was pretty contentious, I believe. Mind you the Nazi's bombed the civilian populations of the UK, and we did the same in Germany.

My uncle was a bomb aimer in the second wave over Dresden. He never recovered from seeing that firestorm. He was invalided out of the RAF because he was mentally unfit to fly after that. For some reason the psychological impact of that raid stopped him from being able to write, as well as giving him a speech impediment. He spent the last 15 years of his life shut in his bedroom, with the curtains drawn, unable to cope with the outside world.

In this case there is little or no ambiguity. Just at the onset of winter, these attacks are direct and satisfying punishment on the civilian population. With luck there may be a military spin-off too, but that is secondary for the Russian command and fan base.

Substations supporting RF logistics are a legitimate military target, but can AFU target them? Permission from its suppliers and capability are the questions.

Transmission corridors may be an easier target. In GWII and possibly GWI, missiles draped conductors across the power lines tripping breakers. The line is u/s until it's cleaned up.

As long as conductors are being draped frequently, the line crews can't keep up.
​​​

There are still several countries operating Sea King’s, just because we have retired ours, it does not mean they are not capable machines, our last ones only went out of service in 2018, we retired the Harriers if you remember, something still in US marine front line service.

If one thing has come out from this war that I think the U.K. needs to address, it is our reserves, we are renowned for retiring capable kit early as cost saving measures, Jaguar, Tornado, Harrier, some of the Stormers, Scorpions , Challengers etc and flogging them off with next to no use on them life wise.

Gone are the days of putting them in storage as war stocks as was done with the likes of the WW2 Green Godess fire engines that used to get dragged out during strikes.

Germany appears to be able to provide NATO Countries with Leopards, Ukraine with Gepards. The US to provide Countries with M113, Humvees, and Abrams tanks from their war reserve stocks.

While the U.K. In reality appears to have sold off ours for a quick buck. That needs to change, because heaven forbid if we ever go to war again in Europe as we will be found lacking, yes you can build new tanks, but refurbishing / regenerating held stock would be a damned sight quicker than starting from scratch and Ukraine Is showing the world what they can do regenerating captured and damaged vehicles and putting them back on the frontline. Something we need to learn from.

examples of what I mean

16,000 odd miles

https://www.mod-sales.com/direct/veh...8x6_DROPS_.htm

303 miles!!!

https://www.mod-sales.com/direct/veh...ER_DEPOSIT.htm

5622 miles!

https://www.mod-sales.com/direct/veh...Land_Rover.htm


..

Luckily we were not so stupid as to sell off our gold reserves, though… (er?)

A nation of not very good shop-keepers?
Finally time to learn some hard lessons?

Even these that were all flogged off with a couple of hundred miles on them cheap, Ukraine is using similar for quick dash and splash missions to kill tanks etc with the likes of stingers, something we could learn from.

https://tanks-alot.co.uk/product/springer-tomcar-2/


This is when we were selling them off With 250 miles on the clock for just over £7k

so £79,000 depreciation opin 250 miles! And the dealer would be making a profit.

https://www.historics.co.uk/buying/a...mcar-springer/

and how Ukraine is using the likes on the battlefield, something we could learn from

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-russian-tanks

https://defence-blog.com/ukrainian-b...russian-tanks/

Fast, cheap and lethal against armour.

​​​​​​…

Don't disagree with your point Nutty, but using reserve stocks didn't go so well for the Russians. Of course, there's a whole argument there about the quality of the equipment but I would imagine it's more than just parking stuff in the desert. Your industry has to have the capacity & capability to bring it back effectively.

The reserve war stocks of vehicles i believe at Bruggen were dragged out and ran around the airfield every month or so, mainly landrovers, 431 MU had sheds full of them. Germany does not appear to have had much trouble generating the Gepards bar the ammo issues and the Government intransigence towards it.

The problem with Russias is their culture of what is yours is mine and the theft there of, tanks in reserve found engineless with electronics and optics stolen to flog on to third parties.