|
Post by mattador78 on Jan 25, 2023 19:10:42 GMT
I saw a video on YouTube by a tank expert and what he was saying was that anything donated by nato is not necessarily the big force multiplier due to the extra logistics required in their use. Such as spares repairs transport most of the nato MBT are nearly twice as heavy as the T variant they are using now however used as fixed defence points at key locations in conjunction with Bradley’s they would allow the Ukrainian reserves of equipment to be used on the frontline whilst a battle group of Nato equipment is consolidated
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jan 25, 2023 20:56:24 GMT
NATO to gradually establish a force on the Ukraine / Russia border after pushing the Russians back, and then over time Ukraine joins NATO, as well as Sweden and Finland.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 25, 2023 21:31:44 GMT
It looks now that this is becoming an open war between NATO, using UKR to do the dirty work, and Russia. The sending of tanks by the US and Germany has gone beyond the tipping point of feigning pretense that "We're just aiding a friendly nation to defend itself," then if Putin is going to use nukes, we should soon see signs of it. It's become a game of chicken and if NATO begins to send F16's and Warthogs as well as the tanks, then that will leave Putin no place to hide. He'll either HAVE to use battlefield nukes or he'll be deposed. It seems that NATO is calling his bluff big style. Let's hope they're right. OS. I see it differently - NATO hasn't really turned up yet! Even tanks aren't a big step beyond what's already there. Some people think jets and long range missiles are a big step too, but I'd send them. A sensible red line for me is NATO equipment being used to directly attack inside Russia's border. I understand people's fears about nukes but I'm much more scared about what happens if we let Russia take land just because it threatens nukes. It would prove beyond all doubt that the *only* way a country can guarantee safety is access to nukes. So if I were Taiwan or Saudi Arabia I'd rush to build my own nukes and once nukes are everywhere the risk goes sky high. That's also why I think China and India will stop Putin from using nukes. Nuclear Taiwan is game over for the CCP's plans.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jan 25, 2023 21:39:28 GMT
NATO to gradually establish a force on the Ukraine / Russia border after pushing the Russians back, and then over time Ukraine joins NATO, as well as Sweden and Finland. Might be many years away but yes that will be the pathway
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jan 25, 2023 22:45:05 GMT
I'm no great military expert but how will 100 odd tanks delivered over the next several months make a jot bit of difference to anything?
When you have a front line of 1000 miles. Where on earth would you even put them if you have anyone who knows how to drive and maintain them?
1 tank every 10 miles, or 100 tanks in 1 mile?
I mean don't Ukraine claim to have destroyed 3000 Russian tanks already or do I have that wrong?
100 tanks would be little more than a detail. An equipment inventory in lieu of a strategy.
I am mystified by this. Is it symbolic really?
What do they say in the USA...a day late and a dollar short.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jan 25, 2023 23:38:32 GMT
I'm no great military expert but how will 100 odd tanks delivered over the next several months make a jot bit of difference to anything? When you have a front line of 1000 miles. Where on earth would you even put them if you have anyone who knows how to drive and maintain them? 1 tank every 10 miles, or 100 tanks in 1 mile? I mean don't Ukraine claim to have destroyed 3000 Russian tanks already or do I have that wrong. I am mystified by this. Is it symbolic really? What do they say in the USA...a day late and a dollar short. A day late That makes a change there usually a couple of years late turning up
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jan 26, 2023 1:48:26 GMT
I'm no great military expert but how will 100 odd tanks delivered over the next several months make a jot bit of difference to anything? When you have a front line of 1000 miles. Where on earth would you even put them if you have anyone who knows how to drive and maintain them? 1 tank every 10 miles, or 100 tanks in 1 mile? I mean don't Ukraine claim to have destroyed 3000 Russian tanks already or do I have that wrong? 100 tanks would be little more than a detail. An equipment inventory in lieu of a strategy. I am mystified by this. Is it symbolic really? What do they say in the USA...a day late and a dollar short. I know what you mean, there are so many videos of tanks blowing up. But Ukrainian soldiers and commanders have begged for them and I trust them to know better than me! The pros say it's all about combined arms and tanks are crucial. I guess we'll see whether they split them up as lethal defence pieces or stick loads of them together into a big fist.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jan 26, 2023 1:50:44 GMT
Insane t.co/Q7RrXjBXKQCan’t get the full 3 minute coverage to paste but Ukrainian SOF soldiers on a night attack Absolutely bonkers stuff is coming out. Here's a video of Ukraine stopping a Russian attack. What a horrible waste of lives just to make the shitstain in the kremlin feel better
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jan 26, 2023 3:31:56 GMT
I'm no great military expert but how will 100 odd tanks delivered over the next several months make a jot bit of difference to anything? When you have a front line of 1000 miles. Where on earth would you even put them if you have anyone who knows how to drive and maintain them? 1 tank every 10 miles, or 100 tanks in 1 mile? I mean don't Ukraine claim to have destroyed 3000 Russian tanks already or do I have that wrong? 100 tanks would be little more than a detail. An equipment inventory in lieu of a strategy. I am mystified by this. Is it symbolic really? What do they say in the USA...a day late and a dollar short. Like you God's I have no Military knowledge but I have posed similar questions The Gung Ho merchants are cheer leading an escalation of the War which clearly has only two possible outcomes. It changes the outcome of the War which means Russia is removed from Ukrainian soil or the amount of Military hardware committed is not decisive and the stalemate continues If its the former Madman Putin also then has only two possible options Take it on the chin and lick his woulds or instigate his own escalation which can only be strategic or an offensive Neuclear reply. If its the later what will the next step be for those supporting Ukraine until it is a decisive intervention and so on in a circularity movement I think Scholz unlike many on this MB was very wise to insist on US skin in the game before committing offensive weaponry to at least partially protect against the ultimate response It's also a supreme irony that Germany who let's face it hasn't got a great reputation for shying away from offensive Military action in Europe has had to be reluctantly cajoled into giving its permission to allow its advanced weaponry to be used to protect Europe as no other Country is in a position to do so.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jan 26, 2023 6:25:08 GMT
I'm no great military expert but how will 100 odd tanks delivered over the next several months make a jot bit of difference to anything? When you have a front line of 1000 miles. Where on earth would you even put them if you have anyone who knows how to drive and maintain them? 1 tank every 10 miles, or 100 tanks in 1 mile? I mean don't Ukraine claim to have destroyed 3000 Russian tanks already or do I have that wrong? 100 tanks would be little more than a detail. An equipment inventory in lieu of a strategy. I am mystified by this. Is it symbolic really? What do they say in the USA...a day late and a dollar short. Like you God's I have no Military knowledge but I have posed similar questions The Gung Ho merchants are cheer leading an escalation of the War which clearly has only two possible outcomes. It changes the outcome of the War which means Russia is removed from Ukrainian soil or the amount of Military hardware committed is not decisive and the stalemate continues If its the former Madman Putin also then has only two possible options Take it on the chin and lick his woulds or instigate his own escalation which can only be strategic or an offensive Neuclear reply. If its the later what will the next step be for those supporting Ukraine until it is a decisive intervention and so on in a circularity movement I think Scholz unlike many on this MB was very wise to insist on US skin in the game before committing offensive weaponry to at least partially protect against the ultimate response It's also a supreme irony that Germany who let's face it hasn't got a great reputation for shying away from offensive Military action in Europe has had to be reluctantly cajoled into giving its permission to allow its advanced weaponry to be used to protect Europe as no other Country is in a position to do so. I completely understand and sympathise with Germany’s position…….
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Jan 26, 2023 7:23:55 GMT
I'm no great military expert but how will 100 odd tanks delivered over the next several months make a jot bit of difference to anything? When you have a front line of 1000 miles. Where on earth would you even put them if you have anyone who knows how to drive and maintain them? 1 tank every 10 miles, or 100 tanks in 1 mile? I mean don't Ukraine claim to have destroyed 3000 Russian tanks already or do I have that wrong? 100 tanks would be little more than a detail. An equipment inventory in lieu of a strategy. I am mystified by this. Is it symbolic really? What do they say in the USA...a day late and a dollar short. Like you God's I have no Military knowledge but I have posed similar questions The Gung Ho merchants are cheer leading an escalation of the War which clearly has only two possible outcomes. It changes the outcome of the War which means Russia is removed from Ukrainian soil or the amount of Military hardware committed is not decisive and the stalemate continues If its the former Madman Putin also then has only two possible options Take it on the chin and lick his woulds or instigate his own escalation which can only be strategic or an offensive Neuclear reply. If its the later what will the next step be for those supporting Ukraine until it is a decisive intervention and so on in a circularity movement I think Scholz unlike many on this MB was very wise to insist on US skin in the game before committing offensive weaponry to at least partially protect against the ultimate response It's also a supreme irony that Germany who let's face it hasn't got a great reputation for shying away from offensive Military action in Europe has had to be reluctantly cajoled into giving its permission to allow its advanced weaponry to be used to protect Europe as no other Country is in a position to do so. Very charitable interpretation. It’s fair that Germany as a non-Nuclear power (albeit under the nato umbrella)might assess the situation differently from the nuclear powers UK/US/France. However, compare Germanys response to Poland and the Baltic states which have been ‘braver’ and it starts to look less virtuous.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 26, 2023 7:55:08 GMT
Interesting thread about the build up to where we find ourselves now and the Russian influence on getting Trump elected.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 26, 2023 8:19:47 GMT
I'm no great military expert but how will 100 odd tanks delivered over the next several months make a jot bit of difference to anything? When you have a front line of 1000 miles. Where on earth would you even put them if you have anyone who knows how to drive and maintain them? 1 tank every 10 miles, or 100 tanks in 1 mile? I mean don't Ukraine claim to have destroyed 3000 Russian tanks already or do I have that wrong? 100 tanks would be little more than a detail. An equipment inventory in lieu of a strategy. I am mystified by this. Is it symbolic really? What do they say in the USA...a day late and a dollar short. Like you God's I have no Military knowledge but I have posed similar questions The Gung Ho merchants are cheer leading an escalation of the War which clearly has only two possible outcomes. It changes the outcome of the War which means Russia is removed from Ukrainian soil or the amount of Military hardware committed is not decisive and the stalemate continues If its the former Madman Putin also then has only two possible options Take it on the chin and lick his woulds or instigate his own escalation which can only be strategic or an offensive Neuclear reply. If its the later what will the next step be for those supporting Ukraine until it is a decisive intervention and so on in a circularity movement I think Scholz unlike many on this MB was very wise to insist on US skin in the game before committing offensive weaponry to at least partially protect against the ultimate response It's also a supreme irony that Germany who let's face it hasn't got a great reputation for shying away from offensive Military action in Europe has had to be reluctantly cajoled into giving its permission to allow its advanced weaponry to be used to protect Europe as no other Country is in a position to do so. Escalation 😂 there’s nothing to be escalated. Also the western tanks are far superior to anything Russia can field so will make a massive difference. They have better armour and a longer range.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 26, 2023 8:26:15 GMT
Like you God's I have no Military knowledge but I have posed similar questions The Gung Ho merchants are cheer leading an escalation of the War which clearly has only two possible outcomes. It changes the outcome of the War which means Russia is removed from Ukrainian soil or the amount of Military hardware committed is not decisive and the stalemate continues If its the former Madman Putin also then has only two possible options Take it on the chin and lick his woulds or instigate his own escalation which can only be strategic or an offensive Neuclear reply. If its the later what will the next step be for those supporting Ukraine until it is a decisive intervention and so on in a circularity movement I think Scholz unlike many on this MB was very wise to insist on US skin in the game before committing offensive weaponry to at least partially protect against the ultimate response It's also a supreme irony that Germany who let's face it hasn't got a great reputation for shying away from offensive Military action in Europe has had to be reluctantly cajoled into giving its permission to allow its advanced weaponry to be used to protect Europe as no other Country is in a position to do so. Very charitable interpretation. It’s fair that Germany as a non-Nuclear power (albeit under the nato umbrella)might assess the situation differently from the nuclear powers UK/US/France. However, compare Germanys response to Poland and the Baltic states which have been ‘braver’ and it starts to look less virtuous. Their reputation has been ruined on an international level for their fannying around. Scholz has acted irresponsibly and has caused more harm to both Ukraine and Germany than was ever necessary. His standpoint has been one where he is afraid to upset the bully Russia. When it’s clear their threats are more and like every bully alls they need is a good smack.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jan 26, 2023 8:43:32 GMT
Like you God's I have no Military knowledge but I have posed similar questions The Gung Ho merchants are cheer leading an escalation of the War which clearly has only two possible outcomes. It changes the outcome of the War which means Russia is removed from Ukrainian soil or the amount of Military hardware committed is not decisive and the stalemate continues If its the former Madman Putin also then has only two possible options Take it on the chin and lick his woulds or instigate his own escalation which can only be strategic or an offensive Neuclear reply. If its the later what will the next step be for those supporting Ukraine until it is a decisive intervention and so on in a circularity movement I think Scholz unlike many on this MB was very wise to insist on US skin in the game before committing offensive weaponry to at least partially protect against the ultimate response It's also a supreme irony that Germany who let's face it hasn't got a great reputation for shying away from offensive Military action in Europe has had to be reluctantly cajoled into giving its permission to allow its advanced weaponry to be used to protect Europe as no other Country is in a position to do so. Escalation 😂 there’s nothing to be escalated. Also the western tanks are far superior to anything Russia can field so will make a massive difference. They have better armour and a longer range. Perhaps, but there are so few of them. I think I heard we are donating 12. They could be gone in an afternoon. It needs the USA ones to make just over 100 in total and they are reporting those will take a year to arrive!!
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 26, 2023 9:18:41 GMT
Escalation 😂 there’s nothing to be escalated. Also the western tanks are far superior to anything Russia can field so will make a massive difference. They have better armour and a longer range. Perhaps, but there are so few of them. I think I heard we are donating 12. They could be gone in an afternoon. It needs the USA ones to make just over 100 in total and they are reporting those will take a year to arrive!!
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Jan 26, 2023 13:40:05 GMT
I'm no great military expert but how will 100 odd tanks delivered over the next several months make a jot bit of difference to anything? When you have a front line of 1000 miles. Where on earth would you even put them if you have anyone who knows how to drive and maintain them? 1 tank every 10 miles, or 100 tanks in 1 mile? I mean don't Ukraine claim to have destroyed 3000 Russian tanks already or do I have that wrong? 100 tanks would be little more than a detail. An equipment inventory in lieu of a strategy. I am mystified by this. Is it symbolic really? What do they say in the USA...a day late and a dollar short. Those tanks will make a big difference and I suspect there'll eventually be at least 200 given to UKR. They'll serve two purposes: because they're far better than any Russian tank and are well armour-plated with a far greater killing power, they can be used to repel forward movement by the Russians and as an offensive weapon they will spearhead any attacks or counter-attacks the UKR make. But they have to be used in conjunction with battalions of the other superb equipment they've been given. And they won't be spread out along that 1000 miles. The best example I can give you is how German Tiger 2 tanks in WW2 in the Battle of the Bulge sliced through allied lines and would have reached Antwerp had their supply route been efficient. But it wasn't. The Tiger 2 needed 2 gallons of fuel for every mile covered. Unfortunately - for the Germans - their weather predictions were wrong. The battle started when the weather was bad and they knew that Allied air cover could not be used to stop their advance. But the weather changed and the Allies were able to destroy the supply lines for their main armament, the Tiger 2 tank. And the rest is history, but it demonstrated how effective a spearhead of tanks is when they're deployed properly. OS.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jan 26, 2023 14:37:15 GMT
Like you God's I have no Military knowledge but I have posed similar questions The Gung Ho merchants are cheer leading an escalation of the War which clearly has only two possible outcomes. It changes the outcome of the War which means Russia is removed from Ukrainian soil or the amount of Military hardware committed is not decisive and the stalemate continues If its the former Madman Putin also then has only two possible options Take it on the chin and lick his woulds or instigate his own escalation which can only be strategic or an offensive Neuclear reply. If its the later what will the next step be for those supporting Ukraine until it is a decisive intervention and so on in a circularity movement I think Scholz unlike many on this MB was very wise to insist on US skin in the game before committing offensive weaponry to at least partially protect against the ultimate response It's also a supreme irony that Germany who let's face it hasn't got a great reputation for shying away from offensive Military action in Europe has had to be reluctantly cajoled into giving its permission to allow its advanced weaponry to be used to protect Europe as no other Country is in a position to do so. Very charitable interpretation. It’s fair that Germany as a non-Nuclear power (albeit under the nato umbrella)might assess the situation differently from the nuclear powers UK/US/France. However, compare Germanys response to Poland and the Baltic states which have been ‘braver’ and it starts to look less virtuous. I'm not entirely sure which part of my post was a Charitable Interpretation other than a statement of reality Any analysis of German actions in matters Military must be viewed in the context of the policy it has shaped since WW2 and the legacy that War has left on its people The German decision to send Military aid to Ukraine in 2022 was the first time this happened since WW2 and it reversed decades of Government Policy not to send Military Equipment to a War Zone. Naturally it stirred up feelings in the German people and it was by no means universally popular Even today the decision to send Leopards which by any measure is an escalation (if it isn't why bother and why all the fuss) German Public Opinion is split 50/50 and even within Scholz's Coalition Government In hindsight Germany's policy towards Russia could be criticised and was at the time by Poland and the Baltic States re Nordstrom 1 which bypassed those Nations. The German Policy was that Economic cooperation with Russia would be the best defense against aggression through mutual benefit. This policy was somewhat endorsed by the peaceful unification of Germany in the 1990s and what it saw as Russian Peaceful Cooperation. They didn't forsee a Madman with Imperialist ambitions appearing in Russia That Policy has seen the German Army starved of funding to the extent its a shambles as it saw no reason to better equip it. It preferred to shield under the NATO banner as a follower barely keeping its funding commitments. That is why it was never going to commit Leopards until US//Biden took a lead to commit Abrams Whether the Abrams ever see active service is immaterial Events in Ukraine has forced a German existential rethink towards its Military spending with Scholz announcing major increases to German Military Budget last April
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jan 26, 2023 15:18:51 GMT
I'm no great military expert but how will 100 odd tanks delivered over the next several months make a jot bit of difference to anything? When you have a front line of 1000 miles. Where on earth would you even put them if you have anyone who knows how to drive and maintain them? 1 tank every 10 miles, or 100 tanks in 1 mile? I mean don't Ukraine claim to have destroyed 3000 Russian tanks already or do I have that wrong? 100 tanks would be little more than a detail. An equipment inventory in lieu of a strategy. I am mystified by this. Is it symbolic really? What do they say in the USA...a day late and a dollar short. Those tanks will make a big difference and I suspect there'll eventually be at least 200 given to UKR. They'll serve two purposes: because they're far better than any Russian tank and are well armour-plated with a far greater killing power, they can be used to repel forward movement by the Russians and as an offensive weapon they will spearhead any attacks or counter-attacks the UKR make. But they have to be used in conjunction with battalions of the other superb equipment they've been given. And they won't be spread out along that 1000 miles. The best example I can give you is how German Tiger 2 tanks in WW2 in the Battle of the Bulge sliced through allied lines and would have reached Antwerp had their supply route been efficient. But it wasn't. The Tiger 2 needed 2 gallons of fuel for every mile covered. Unfortunately - for the Germans - their weather predictions were wrong. The battle started when the weather was bad and they knew that Allied air cover could not be used to stop their advance. But the weather changed and the Allies were able to destroy the supply lines for their main armament, the Tiger 2 tank. And the rest is history, but it demonstrated how effective a spearhead of tanks is when they're deployed properly. OS. The mil experts are saying NATO tanks could be kinda like you say. Not war-changing like HIMARS, but worth local victories. Any attack will meet anti-tank missiles and artillery but NATO tanks can survive most Russian missiles and accurately blast back from miles away. Without that extra toughness and the ability to accurately blast things apart at 4 km, a Ukrainian attack full of BMPs and Bradleys could fail. If the Russians send 50 tanks + BMPs to attack, the Russians would currently break through in many places. But a handful of NATO tanks could take out the Russian tanks from a safe distance and when the Russians get in range it's only 30 mm BMP-2 guns surviving. Sure, they'd chip the paint but would be having an awful day. The Ukrainians don't need one tank per 10 miles, they put a small squadron somewhere and either the Russians send a surprise attack that's turned into scrap an hour later, or they have to prepare 100+ vehicles to overwhelm the Ukrainian defence. Ukrainian intel spots such a massive attack being prepared and can prepare more missiles and guns. I don't know if what these folk said is realistic, but it sounds believable. I got this from listening in to some channels that talk each evening about the war - including Ukrainian combat engineers, and some NATO tank soldier/commander.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Jan 26, 2023 16:09:19 GMT
Very charitable interpretation. It’s fair that Germany as a non-Nuclear power (albeit under the nato umbrella)might assess the situation differently from the nuclear powers UK/US/France. However, compare Germanys response to Poland and the Baltic states which have been ‘braver’ and it starts to look less virtuous. I'm not entirely sure which part of my post was a Charitable Interpretation other than a statement of reality Any analysis of German actions in matters Military must be viewed in the context of the policy it has shaped since WW2 and the legacy that War has left on its people The German decision to send Military aid to Ukraine in 2022 was the first time this happened since WW2 and it reversed decades of Government Policy not to send Military Equipment to a War Zone. Naturally it stirred up feelings in the German people and it was by no means universally popular Even today the decision to send Leopards which by any measure is an escalation (if it isn't why bother and why all the fuss) German Public Opinion is split 50/50 and even within Scholz's Coalition Government In hindsight Germany's policy towards Russia could be criticised and was at the time by Poland and the Baltic States re Nordstrom 1 which bypassed those Nations. The German Policy was that Economic cooperation with Russia would be the best defense against aggression through mutual benefit. This policy was somewhat endorsed by the peaceful unification of Germany in the 1990s and what it saw as Russian Peaceful Cooperation. They didn't forsee a Madman with Imperialist ambitions appearing in Russia That Policy has seen the German Army starved of funding to the extent its a shambles as it saw no reason to better equip it. It preferred to shield under the NATO banner as a follower barely keeping its funding commitments. That is why it was never going to commit Leopards until US//Biden took a lead to commit Abrams Whether the Abrams ever see active service is immaterial Events in Ukraine has forced a German existential rethink towards its Military spending with Scholz announcing major increases to German Military Budget last April I think it’s charitable to suggest that German reticence is purely down to its history and a fear of being seen to act alone. The other Eastern European states have done proportionally more despite being more vulnerable. The linking Leopards with Abrams was stalling in my opinion. Not necessary. Britain had already approved the Challengers and others were willing to send their own Leopards and only needed German approval owing to contractual niceties. Agree with you that Germany (and the rest of Europe) need a serious rethink on defence.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 26, 2023 16:40:52 GMT
I'm no great military expert but how will 100 odd tanks delivered over the next several months make a jot bit of difference to anything? When you have a front line of 1000 miles. Where on earth would you even put them if you have anyone who knows how to drive and maintain them? 1 tank every 10 miles, or 100 tanks in 1 mile? I mean don't Ukraine claim to have destroyed 3000 Russian tanks already or do I have that wrong? 100 tanks would be little more than a detail. An equipment inventory in lieu of a strategy. I am mystified by this. Is it symbolic really? What do they say in the USA...a day late and a dollar short. You may expect them to be used in a battle group, break through the defence lines and encircle Russian troops from behind forcing a surrender, they can then move the defence line forward and gain more ground, and repeat etc
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jan 26, 2023 16:57:03 GMT
The Gung Ho merchants are cheer leading an escalation of the War which clearly has only two possible outcomes. It changes the outcome of the War which means Russia is removed from Ukrainian soil or the amount of Military hardware committed is not decisive and the stalemate continues I see it kinda like a spectrum from "Russia occupied Ukraine and gets to rape, torture and murder anyone who wants to be free" versus "Ukraine is fully liberated and its people get to be free and safe". And I don't think any one weapon jumps us 100% from one side to the other. Tanks just push in the right direction. Just like how HIMARS, Gepards etc freed most of east Kharkiv oblast and Kherson north of the river. Something like half a million innocent Ukrainians are now free from the fascist jackboot. Russian invaders tear off fingernails, they slice and shred innocent people's flesh and skin and they rape children. Then Putin gives their unit an award for it. Tanks save more innocents. Ukraine couldn't run 300 NATO tanks now, but it can start with a few dozen. Makes sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jan 26, 2023 17:25:08 GMT
I'm no great military expert but how will 100 odd tanks delivered over the next several months make a jot bit of difference to anything? Some logistics guys were talking about "manoeuvre" versus "attrition" war. Tanks can also help attrition. Bayern shared a tweet on the battle of Medina ridge where US Abrams+Bradleys attacked a dug in defending enemy and were destroyed, but for each Abrams/Bradley the defenders lost 50 T-72s or BMPs. I think Ukraine (and us) would be happy to trade a Challenger or Leopard for just 10 T-72s...
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jan 26, 2023 17:30:47 GMT
I'm not entirely sure which part of my post was a Charitable Interpretation other than a statement of reality Any analysis of German actions in matters Military must be viewed in the context of the policy it has shaped since WW2 and the legacy that War has left on its people The German decision to send Military aid to Ukraine in 2022 was the first time this happened since WW2 and it reversed decades of Government Policy not to send Military Equipment to a War Zone. Naturally it stirred up feelings in the German people and it was by no means universally popular Even today the decision to send Leopards which by any measure is an escalation (if it isn't why bother and why all the fuss) German Public Opinion is split 50/50 and even within Scholz's Coalition Government In hindsight Germany's policy towards Russia could be criticised and was at the time by Poland and the Baltic States re Nordstrom 1 which bypassed those Nations. The German Policy was that Economic cooperation with Russia would be the best defense against aggression through mutual benefit. This policy was somewhat endorsed by the peaceful unification of Germany in the 1990s and what it saw as Russian Peaceful Cooperation. They didn't forsee a Madman with Imperialist ambitions appearing in Russia That Policy has seen the German Army starved of funding to the extent its a shambles as it saw no reason to better equip it. It preferred to shield under the NATO banner as a follower barely keeping its funding commitments. That is why it was never going to commit Leopards until US//Biden took a lead to commit Abrams Whether the Abrams ever see active service is immaterial Events in Ukraine has forced a German existential rethink towards its Military spending with Scholz announcing major increases to German Military Budget last April I think it’s charitable to suggest that German reticence is purely down to its history and a fear of being seen to act alone. The other Eastern European states have done proportionally more despite being more vulnerable. The linking Leopards with Abrams was stalling in my opinion. Not necessary. Britain had already approved the Challengers and others were willing to send their own Leopards and only needed German approval owing to contractual niceties. Agree with you that Germany (and the rest of Europe) need a serious rethink on defence. I agree with you to a very large extent but to make very large Policy decisions a Government has to carry its people with them When Germany first began giving Military Aid to Ukraine it was described in German as a Zeitenwende, literally a turning point in History. It marked an epochal change in German Foreign and Security positions It was far from Universally approved by the German people The supply of Leopards upped the anti and current German Polls show 44% in favour and 43% against I have said on here before a few times that the supply of Abrams was mostly symbolic in order to give Scholz Political cover and he is a Politician. I think that's where we are.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jan 26, 2023 17:39:44 GMT
The Gung Ho merchants are cheer leading an escalation of the War which clearly has only two possible outcomes. It changes the outcome of the War which means Russia is removed from Ukrainian soil or the amount of Military hardware committed is not decisive and the stalemate continues I see it kinda like a spectrum from "Russia occupied Ukraine and gets to rape, torture and murder anyone who wants to be free" versus "Ukraine is fully liberated and its people get to be free and safe". And I don't think any one weapon jumps us 100% from one side to the other. Tanks just push in the right direction. Just like how HIMARS, Gepards etc freed most of east Kharkiv oblast and Kherson north of the river. Something like half a million innocent Ukrainians are now free from the fascist jackboot. Russian invaders tear off fingernails, they slice and shred innocent people's flesh and skin and they rape children. Then Putin gives their unit an award for it. Tanks save more innocents. Ukraine couldn't run 300 NATO tanks now, but it can start with a few dozen. Makes sense to me. I'll take your word for it on the Military assessment but that narrative is a change, at least on this MB, that the Leopards would be a game changer, War is over. You've edited my post where I posed that very question if the Leopards didn't remove Russia or even worse I went on to say if Stalemate what would be the next escalation from NATO (as let's stop pretending its not NATO) and if the Leopards were decisive what escalation could Putin make, the answer is obvious
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Jan 26, 2023 18:04:44 GMT
I think it’s charitable to suggest that German reticence is purely down to its history and a fear of being seen to act alone. The other Eastern European states have done proportionally more despite being more vulnerable. The linking Leopards with Abrams was stalling in my opinion. Not necessary. Britain had already approved the Challengers and others were willing to send their own Leopards and only needed German approval owing to contractual niceties. Agree with you that Germany (and the rest of Europe) need a serious rethink on defence. I agree with you to a very large extent but to make very large Policy decisions a Government has to carry its people with them When Germany first began giving Military Aid to Ukraine it was described in German as a Zeitenwende, literally a turning point in History. It marked an epochal change in German Foreign and Security positions It was far from Universally approved by the German people The supply of Leopards upped the anti and current German Polls show 44% in favour and 43% against I have said on here before a few times that the supply of Abrams was mostly symbolic in order to give Scholz Political cover and he is a Politician. I think that's where we are. Good post. I don’t think we disagree much. I don’t really blame Schulz so much individually. Politicians have to operate within a political culture. However, I think the German leadership (including Merkel) should have shown more leadership on this. E.g. I recall lots of consternation about Bord Stream and it’s implications for European security before the war. There’s also clearly an issue with the rest of Europe relying on Germany as its main arms supplier.
|
|
|
Post by dirtclod on Jan 26, 2023 18:17:03 GMT
There is enough armor sitting round in reserve across the globe that would be useful to Ukraine, These tanks, including the Abrams have been in production long enough that even without all the upgrades - they'll eat a T-72/T-90 in their sleep as they all have thermal and great armor, which some Ukrainian tanks still don't have. Yes a few dozen can make a world of difference, especially if used in a "floating reserve" ghost-division attacking Russian breakthrough attempts, general harassment of supply lines etc. But most importantly is the mobile artillery and IFV's that can travel with these tanks, making the sustainment of advances feasible. The handheld missiles, MLRS etc. etc. are critical as well and a main reason that both sides have used tanks in a more cautious manner lately. The Ukraine military is obviously more versatile than I was giving it credit for and the supplying countries seem to be sending ammo with the tanks, so...
I'm hoping that my country (US) and other countries continue to see the value in sending reserve tanks over now - stopping Putin now will likely stave off the requirement for all these vehicles somewhere else later, so they'd continue to sit in mothballs otherwise.
And yes, it's a "numbers" game now, requiring a favorable kill to losses ratio. (positive goal-difference if you will) I have full confidence in Leopards, Challengers and Abrams' being able to achieve that ratio. As long as Russia continues to fail in air-superiority, mainly due to AA weapons then we don't have to get involved with aircraft, which is a more "sensitive" topic. And long may Russia continue to fail in their deployment of their tanks, I look forward to hearing about Ukrainian tanks going on artillery-killing/capture sprees. (Fingers crossed)
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jan 26, 2023 19:05:28 GMT
Near Vulhedar, a current hot spot.
Different from Bakhmut or Kreminna areas that are also in the news. Apparently Russia's professional army attacking hard.
|
|
|
Post by questionable on Jan 27, 2023 8:36:05 GMT
There is enough armor sitting round in reserve across the globe that would be useful to Ukraine, These tanks, including the Abrams have been in production long enough that even without all the upgrades - they'll eat a T-72/T-90 in their sleep as they all have thermal and great armor, which some Ukrainian tanks still don't have. Yes a few dozen can make a world of difference, especially if used in a "floating reserve" ghost-division attacking Russian breakthrough attempts, general harassment of supply lines etc. But most importantly is the mobile artillery and IFV's that can travel with these tanks, making the sustainment of advances feasible. The handheld missiles, MLRS etc. etc. are critical as well and a main reason that both sides have used tanks in a more cautious manner lately. The Ukraine military is obviously more versatile than I was giving it credit for and the supplying countries seem to be sending ammo with the tanks, so... I'm hoping that my country (US) and other countries continue to see the value in sending reserve tanks over now - stopping Putin now will likely stave off the requirement for all these vehicles somewhere else later, so they'd continue to sit in mothballs otherwise. And yes, it's a "numbers" game now, requiring a favorable kill to losses ratio. (positive goal-difference if you will) I have full confidence in Leopards, Challengers and Abrams' being able to achieve that ratio. As long as Russia continues to fail in air-superiority, mainly due to AA weapons then we don't have to get involved with aircraft, which is a more "sensitive" topic. And long may Russia continue to fail in their deployment of their tanks, I look forward to hearing about Ukrainian tanks going on artillery-killing/capture sprees. (Fingers crossed) The next stage for Ukraine is to now advance forward (weather permitting) at a speed that will overrun the vast fortified Russian lines, speed is the key now. Ukraine seem to have the correct balance of tanks/equipment, or will have to dominate the battlefield hopefully. I can 100% see jet fighters being thrown into equipment being supplied very soon and long range missiles to cut off Russian supply routes hundreds of miles away
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Jan 27, 2023 9:24:58 GMT
There is enough armor sitting round in reserve across the globe that would be useful to Ukraine, These tanks, including the Abrams have been in production long enough that even without all the upgrades - they'll eat a T-72/T-90 in their sleep as they all have thermal and great armor, which some Ukrainian tanks still don't have. Yes a few dozen can make a world of difference, especially if used in a "floating reserve" ghost-division attacking Russian breakthrough attempts, general harassment of supply lines etc. But most importantly is the mobile artillery and IFV's that can travel with these tanks, making the sustainment of advances feasible. The handheld missiles, MLRS etc. etc. are critical as well and a main reason that both sides have used tanks in a more cautious manner lately. The Ukraine military is obviously more versatile than I was giving it credit for and the supplying countries seem to be sending ammo with the tanks, so... I'm hoping that my country (US) and other countries continue to see the value in sending reserve tanks over now - stopping Putin now will likely stave off the requirement for all these vehicles somewhere else later, so they'd continue to sit in mothballs otherwise. And yes, it's a "numbers" game now, requiring a favorable kill to losses ratio. (positive goal-difference if you will) I have full confidence in Leopards, Challengers and Abrams' being able to achieve that ratio. As long as Russia continues to fail in air-superiority, mainly due to AA weapons then we don't have to get involved with aircraft, which is a more "sensitive" topic. And long may Russia continue to fail in their deployment of their tanks, I look forward to hearing about Ukrainian tanks going on artillery-killing/capture sprees. (Fingers crossed) The next stage for Ukraine is to now advance forward (weather permitting) at a speed that will overrun the vast fortified Russian lines, speed is the key now. Ukraine seem to have the correct balance of tanks/equipment, or will have to dominate the battlefield hopefully. I can 100% see jet fighters being thrown into equipment being supplied very soon and long range missiles to cut off Russian supply routes hundreds of miles away I don't think that mainstream media talking about jet fighters so soon after tanks have been allocated is a coincidence or simple journalistic conjecture. NATO is preparing public opinion for it to happen. I'm not against the move at all, but I find it a bit disturbing how easy it is for general populations to be taken down a road where we will become accepting of each step that's been taken. My point is wider than the Ukraine war, as in my view, more should have been done to help Ukraine sooner, and we should do much more now. My main concern is how easy it is to make us comply with an overriding official message, and therefore, our loss of independent thinking.
|
|