[81alum]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1615442283985248256?s=20&t=PqNXVETE4kp6qWkAxvmd6g[/tweet]

On tanks...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1611768817805414403?s=20&t=PqNXVETE4kp6qWkAxvmd6g[/tweet]

From a guy who would know.

Also, this analysis from Shoshank Joshi in the Economist.

https://www.economist.com/interactive/in...e-a-future

It would be wrong, however, to write the tank’s obituary based on its performance in the war, precisely because Russia has made such poor use of them. Many military experts had expected that drones would be little more than a nuisance in any conflict. But Russia’s failure to eliminate Ukrainian air defences in the first days of the war means that its warplanes cannot patrol the skies, giving tb2s more freedom to operate. Meanwhile, Russian air defences, designed to detect larger aircraft, seem to struggle with the smaller drones, though there have been improvements in recent weeks.

Modern armed forces prize the idea of combined-arms warfare, in which the various elements of a military formation compensate for each other’s weaknesses. Tanks can clear the way for infantry, but only infantry can go into a warren of tunnels to weed out enemy squads armed with anti-tank weapons. Warplanes can provide cover for advancing tanks and infantry, but need air defences on the ground to keep enemy planes away. Ben Barry, a former commander of a British armoured infantry battalion, now at the iiss, a think-tank, has called it “a lethal version of scissors, paper, stone”.

BC

Thanks!  The Economist article was quite useful.  I'm still a skeptic, but hoping to be wrong.  Interesting that I apparently hit on a major debate even among military experts about the future of the tank.

[81alum]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1615442283985248256?s=20&t=PqNXVETE4kp6qWkAxvmd6g[/tweet]

On tanks...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1611768817805414403?s=20&t=PqNXVETE4kp6qWkAxvmd6g[/tweet]

From a guy who would know.

Also, this analysis from Shoshank Joshi in the Economist.

https://www.economist.com/interactive/in...e-a-future

It would be wrong, however, to write the tank’s obituary based on its performance in the war, precisely because Russia has made such poor use of them. Many military experts had expected that drones would be little more than a nuisance in any conflict. But Russia’s failure to eliminate Ukrainian air defences in the first days of the war means that its warplanes cannot patrol the skies, giving tb2s more freedom to operate. Meanwhile, Russian air defences, designed to detect larger aircraft, seem to struggle with the smaller drones, though there have been improvements in recent weeks.

Modern armed forces prize the idea of combined-arms warfare, in which the various elements of a military formation compensate for each other’s weaknesses. Tanks can clear the way for infantry, but only infantry can go into a warren of tunnels to weed out enemy squads armed with anti-tank weapons. Warplanes can provide cover for advancing tanks and infantry, but need air defences on the ground to keep enemy planes away. Ben Barry, a former commander of a British armoured infantry battalion, now at the iiss, a think-tank, has called it “a lethal version of scissors, paper, stone”.

BC

Thanks!  The Economist article was quite useful.  I'm still a skeptic, but hoping to be wrong.  Interesting that I apparently hit on a major debate even among military experts about the future of the tank.

[TrumpCard]

The analysis in the Economist makes intuitive sense to this layperson, and it makes me wonder yet again, when is Ukraine going to get fighter jets?

[TrumpCard]

The analysis in the Economist makes intuitive sense to this layperson, and it makes me wonder yet again, when is Ukraine going to get fighter jets?

[gocard14]

The analysis in the Economist makes intuitive sense to this layperson, and it makes me wonder yet again, when is Ukraine going to get fighter jets?

Ukraine definitely needs and should get fighters, if only to maintain current capability despite attrition. But one of the most surprising parts of the conflict has been the relative lack of role of airpower due to the upper hand that ground based air-defenses have against them. An F16 may be more capable then a mig29, but it may not make a brobdingnagian difference if it is still too susceptible to fire from S-300s. Giving ukraine F16s doesn't give mean they can suddenly suppress enemy air defenses effectivelyThe main benefit of F16s may not be the airframe, but the fact that we can include compatible long-range weaponry that they can fire from standoff range, but that is not the combined arms role that we envision them playing. 

In a war with the US where we can obtain air superiority, the tank and other armor may be more survivable when we can offer close air support and target enemy long range fires quickly behind enemy lines.

[gocard14]

The analysis in the Economist makes intuitive sense to this layperson, and it makes me wonder yet again, when is Ukraine going to get fighter jets?

Ukraine definitely needs and should get fighters, if only to maintain current capability despite attrition. But one of the most surprising parts of the conflict has been the relative lack of role of airpower due to the upper hand that ground based air-defenses have against them. An F16 may be more capable then a mig29, but it may not make a brobdingnagian difference if it is still too susceptible to fire from S-300s. Giving ukraine F16s doesn't give mean they can suddenly suppress enemy air defenses effectivelyThe main benefit of F16s may not be the airframe, but the fact that we can include compatible long-range weaponry that they can fire from standoff range, but that is not the combined arms role that we envision them playing. 

In a war with the US where we can obtain air superiority, the tank and other armor may be more survivable when we can offer close air support and target enemy long range fires quickly behind enemy lines.

[fullmetal]

How can Ukraine address the training and logistics required to deploy F-16s so quickly?  Pilots have to be retrained (no small feat when reflexes have to be rewired), ground crews have to be retrained, fuel/spare parts have to spin up their own supply chains, airbases have to be reworked, etc.  The software might even have to be rewritten for all I know...unit conversions to the metric system, Roman to Cyrillic digital displays, etc.

I agree that Ukraine needs F-16s, but it's not going to happen without a lot of work...and that work has to happen behind the scenes quietly.  I really hope that it's an ongoing process that hasn't been publicized.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

[fullmetal]

How can Ukraine address the training and logistics required to deploy F-16s so quickly?  Pilots have to be retrained (no small feat when reflexes have to be rewired), ground crews have to be retrained, fuel/spare parts have to spin up their own supply chains, airbases have to be reworked, etc.  The software might even have to be rewritten for all I know...unit conversions to the metric system, Roman to Cyrillic digital displays, etc.

I agree that Ukraine needs F-16s, but it's not going to happen without a lot of work...and that work has to happen behind the scenes quietly.  I really hope that it's an ongoing process that hasn't been publicized.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

[TrumpCard]

No Abrams tanks, ATACMS, or F-16s in the newest tranche of military aid from the US, but apparently there will be GLSDB, which have a range of ~100 miles and which includes essentially all of the territory Russia controls in the Donbas, plus a small part of the Crimean peninsula.  https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/18...a-00078331

[TrumpCard]

No Abrams tanks, ATACMS, or F-16s in the newest tranche of military aid from the US, but apparently there will be GLSDB, which have a range of ~100 miles and which includes essentially all of the territory Russia controls in the Donbas, plus a small part of the Crimean peninsula.  https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/18...a-00078331

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1615807717469491204?s=20&t=HjokGhHEOH_4EZOnJKd1mA[/tweet]

Hope it's true, and in large numbers! Would be a very handy weapon. All of occupied Donbas and part of Crimea would then be in range. And if Ukraine can get to the Azov coast, Kerch bridge could be ranged. Dicey position for Russia!

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1615807717469491204?s=20&t=HjokGhHEOH_4EZOnJKd1mA[/tweet]

Hope it's true, and in large numbers! Would be a very handy weapon. All of occupied Donbas and part of Crimea would then be in range. And if Ukraine can get to the Azov coast, Kerch bridge could be ranged. Dicey position for Russia!

[gocard14]

No Abrams tanks, ATACMS, or F-16s in the newest tranche of military aid from the US, but apparently there will be GLSDB, which have a range of ~100 miles and which includes essentially all of the territory Russia controls in the Donbas, plus a small part of the Crimean peninsula.  https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/18...a-00078331

If we can give Ukraine GLSDB's in sufficient volume, that could be a brobdingnagian impact. It could force further dispersal of logistics, command and control to over double the current distances. Not being able to concentrate people or munitions anywhere near the front lines would be extremely difficult to manage, and Ukraine seems to have no shortage of people willing to give them information/coordinates to target.

---

Reportedly Germany wants us to authorize Abrams for them to give leopards. 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ber...reddit.com

The issues with sending Abrams have been discussed, but if that’s what it takes we should send some over; even if only as a symbolic gesture. Let them be stationed in Kyiv or Lviv as a reserve unit to limit logistics/fuel issues.

[gocard14]

No Abrams tanks, ATACMS, or F-16s in the newest tranche of military aid from the US, but apparently there will be GLSDB, which have a range of ~100 miles and which includes essentially all of the territory Russia controls in the Donbas, plus a small part of the Crimean peninsula.  https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/18...a-00078331

If we can give Ukraine GLSDB's in sufficient volume, that could be a brobdingnagian impact. It could force further dispersal of logistics, command and control to over double the current distances. Not being able to concentrate people or munitions anywhere near the front lines would be extremely difficult to manage, and Ukraine seems to have no shortage of people willing to give them information/coordinates to target.

---

Reportedly Germany wants us to authorize Abrams for them to give leopards. 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ber...reddit.com

The issues with sending Abrams have been discussed, but if that’s what it takes we should send some over; even if only as a symbolic gesture. Let them be stationed in Kyiv or Lviv as a reserve unit to limit logistics/fuel issues.

[BostonCard]

Also...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1615906676636262402?s=20&t=58Vnkhh9P7sIco6ieV3ASA[/tweet]

BC

[BostonCard]

Also...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1615906676636262402?s=20&t=58Vnkhh9P7sIco6ieV3ASA[/tweet]

BC

[Goose]

Ukraine definitely needs and should get fighters, if only to maintain current capability despite attrition.

Totally agree.

But one of the most surprising parts of the conflict has been the relative lack of role of airpower due to the upper hand that ground based air-defenses have against them.

Not surprising at all. The Ukraine and Russia have air forces designed to fight NATO, not their own mirror image. NATO doesn't rely on an IADS to protect it's territory. It relies on it's air forces. Ergo, Russia/Ukraine don't have a SEAD/DEAD plan worthy of the name. NATO does, because we expect/have fought against them. On top of that, IMHO the Russian air force is not all that wild about fighting this war. They are risk and casualty adverse far more than what we would expect if they were "serious".

An F16 may be more capable then a mig29, but it may not make a of immense proportions difference if it is still too susceptible to fire from S-300s. Giving ukraine F16s doesn't give mean they can suddenly suppress enemy air defenses effectively.

Amen! Just because you can fly the plane without killing yourself doesn't mean you can execute a SEAD mission. There is lots of knowledge and experience in both planning and execution you just don't have.

The main benefit of F16s may not be the airframe, but the fact that we can include compatible long-range weaponry that they can fire from standoff range, but that is not the combined arms role that we envision them playing.

That is exactly the role we envision them playing. In modern warfare, "close" air support is 5 or more miles and 10K or more feet AGL. The days of a Hun blasting over the FEBA at 500 feet dropping Nape and Snake at random are long over. Uniting the threads, it is not the Javelin that arguably makes tanks "obsolete". It is the Maverick. For reference, the US used over 5000 Mavericks in Desert Storm, with about a 90% hit rate. Tank plinking is safe and effective if you have air supremacy. You can even do it easily at night where the warm tanks really stand out to the IR viewer.
Seriously, that is why the AF really wants to get rid of the A-10. They were most effective in Iraq when they stayed above 10K feet and fired Mavericks. When they dropped down lower to use their gun, the loss rate skyrocketed. This was against an opponent that didn't have lots of MANPADS, mostly just guns. You just don't want to go there. A-10s have the problem that at higher altitude they can't really defend themselves from enemy air, if there is any. F-16s can, and they can also fire Mavericks. The small diameter bombs that are part of the "GLSDB" are designed for this type of air support. Why use the substitute when you can have the real thing :-)

How can Ukraine address the training and logistics required to deploy F-16s so quickly?  Pilots have to be retrained (no small feat when reflexes have to be rewired), ground crews have to be retrained, fuel/spare parts have to spin up their own supply chains, airbases have to be reworked, etc.  The software might even have to be rewritten for all I know...unit conversions to the metric system, Roman to Cyrillic digital displays, etc.

I agree that Ukraine needs F-16s, but it's not going to happen without a lot of work...and that work has to happen behind the scenes quietly.  I really hope that it's an ongoing process that hasn't been publicized.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

IMO you aren't wrong, and I totally agree the groundwork for this hopefully is proceeding. We should be training Ukrainian pilots just in case we decide to provide aircraft. Software changes and Roman to Cyrillic digital displays aren't required, but lots of training is. I am fully aware that Ukraine has done lots of rapid absorption of NATO weapons, but building an air force from scratch that can execute air-to-air, air-to-mud, and SEAD/DEAD missions isn't ever going to be quick or easy. It just isn't. You can probably take a pilot who has finished basic training and make him a reasonably competent air-to-air guy in 6-9 months. He is going to have to do a lot of flying. Then you can talk about the other missions. The problem is none of his superiors in Ukraine have any experience doing this kind of flying so he has no mentors. They have never even contemplated a DEAD plan. Remember that back in the 1990s when the US wasn't yet totally relying on stealth aircraft to execute the DEAD plan, we had both specialized EA assets and Weasels. The Weasels were generally the most highly trained and experienced aircrew in the AF. Ukraine has none of this (nor do we, anymore). It won't be easy, and it won't be fast. That is why we need to have already started laying the groundwork, because it will take a while before the "new" weapon will be useful.

[Goose]

Ukraine definitely needs and should get fighters, if only to maintain current capability despite attrition.

Totally agree.

But one of the most surprising parts of the conflict has been the relative lack of role of airpower due to the upper hand that ground based air-defenses have against them.

Not surprising at all. The Ukraine and Russia have air forces designed to fight NATO, not their own mirror image. NATO doesn't rely on an IADS to protect it's territory. It relies on it's air forces. Ergo, Russia/Ukraine don't have a SEAD/DEAD plan worthy of the name. NATO does, because we expect/have fought against them. On top of that, IMHO the Russian air force is not all that wild about fighting this war. They are risk and casualty adverse far more than what we would expect if they were "serious".

An F16 may be more capable then a mig29, but it may not make a of immense proportions difference if it is still too susceptible to fire from S-300s. Giving ukraine F16s doesn't give mean they can suddenly suppress enemy air defenses effectively.

Amen! Just because you can fly the plane without killing yourself doesn't mean you can execute a SEAD mission. There is lots of knowledge and experience in both planning and execution you just don't have.

The main benefit of F16s may not be the airframe, but the fact that we can include compatible long-range weaponry that they can fire from standoff range, but that is not the combined arms role that we envision them playing.

That is exactly the role we envision them playing. In modern warfare, "close" air support is 5 or more miles and 10K or more feet AGL. The days of a Hun blasting over the FEBA at 500 feet dropping Nape and Snake at random are long over. Uniting the threads, it is not the Javelin that arguably makes tanks "obsolete". It is the Maverick. For reference, the US used over 5000 Mavericks in Desert Storm, with about a 90% hit rate. Tank plinking is safe and effective if you have air supremacy. You can even do it easily at night where the warm tanks really stand out to the IR viewer.
Seriously, that is why the AF really wants to get rid of the A-10. They were most effective in Iraq when they stayed above 10K feet and fired Mavericks. When they dropped down lower to use their gun, the loss rate skyrocketed. This was against an opponent that didn't have lots of MANPADS, mostly just guns. You just don't want to go there. A-10s have the problem that at higher altitude they can't really defend themselves from enemy air, if there is any. F-16s can, and they can also fire Mavericks. The small diameter bombs that are part of the "GLSDB" are designed for this type of air support. Why use the substitute when you can have the real thing :-)

How can Ukraine address the training and logistics required to deploy F-16s so quickly?  Pilots have to be retrained (no small feat when reflexes have to be rewired), ground crews have to be retrained, fuel/spare parts have to spin up their own supply chains, airbases have to be reworked, etc.  The software might even have to be rewritten for all I know...unit conversions to the metric system, Roman to Cyrillic digital displays, etc.

I agree that Ukraine needs F-16s, but it's not going to happen without a lot of work...and that work has to happen behind the scenes quietly.  I really hope that it's an ongoing process that hasn't been publicized.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

IMO you aren't wrong, and I totally agree the groundwork for this hopefully is proceeding. We should be training Ukrainian pilots just in case we decide to provide aircraft. Software changes and Roman to Cyrillic digital displays aren't required, but lots of training is. I am fully aware that Ukraine has done lots of rapid absorption of NATO weapons, but building an air force from scratch that can execute air-to-air, air-to-mud, and SEAD/DEAD missions isn't ever going to be quick or easy. It just isn't. You can probably take a pilot who has finished basic training and make him a reasonably competent air-to-air guy in 6-9 months. He is going to have to do a lot of flying. Then you can talk about the other missions. The problem is none of his superiors in Ukraine have any experience doing this kind of flying so he has no mentors. They have never even contemplated a DEAD plan. Remember that back in the 1990s when the US wasn't yet totally relying on stealth aircraft to execute the DEAD plan, we had both specialized EA assets and Weasels. The Weasels were generally the most highly trained and experienced aircrew in the AF. Ukraine has none of this (nor do we, anymore). It won't be easy, and it won't be fast. That is why we need to have already started laying the groundwork, because it will take a while before the "new" weapon will be useful.

[gocard14]

Another big day for Ukranian support. Sweden sending 50 CV90s (newer Bradley equivalent) and undisclosed number of Archer artillery systems. Denmark sending 19 more French Ceaser units. US package reportedly to be announced today including 100 Strykers and GLSDBs. No new MBT announcements beyond the British Challengers.

I don't envy Ukraine's logistics corps, but that is a lot of high end hardware.

Edit: Also Poland PM reportedly saying they will send leopards with or without Germany's consent. I wonder what the consequences of breaking export agreements would be, or if in this case Germany is happy to have Poland send them without having to officially approve it. They could always refuse to sell arms to Poland in the future, but that could be a self-inflicted wound both in loss of funds when Poland orders from elsewhere as well as potentially impairing their own national security from a less robust eastern buffer with Russia.

[gocard14]

Another big day for Ukranian support. Sweden sending 50 CV90s (newer Bradley equivalent) and undisclosed number of Archer artillery systems. Denmark sending 19 more French Ceaser units. US package reportedly to be announced today including 100 Strykers and GLSDBs. No new MBT announcements beyond the British Challengers.

I don't envy Ukraine's logistics corps, but that is a lot of high end hardware.

Edit: Also Poland PM reportedly saying they will send leopards with or without Germany's consent. I wonder what the consequences of breaking export agreements would be, or if in this case Germany is happy to have Poland send them without having to officially approve it. They could always refuse to sell arms to Poland in the future, but that could be a self-inflicted wound both in loss of funds when Poland orders from elsewhere as well as potentially impairing their own national security from a less robust eastern buffer with Russia.

[fullmetal]

German politicians have their hands in various Russian-related financial interests; it's painful to watch their actions right now...

Also, are there any more spare MiG planes/parts in ex-bloc NATO countries that we could backfill with US F-16s?  Or has that already been tapped out?

Glad to see the hardware coming in as reports of further Rus/Belarussian activity continue to roll in.  The Russians continue to rely on Stalin's maxim that quantity is sometimes a quality of its own.

[fullmetal]

German politicians have their hands in various Russian-related financial interests; it's painful to watch their actions right now...

Also, are there any more spare MiG planes/parts in ex-bloc NATO countries that we could backfill with US F-16s?  Or has that already been tapped out?

Glad to see the hardware coming in as reports of further Rus/Belarussian activity continue to roll in.  The Russians continue to rely on Stalin's maxim that quantity is sometimes a quality of its own.

[Goose]

Another big day for Ukranian support. Sweden sending 50 CV90s (newer Bradley equivalent) and undisclosed number of Archer artillery systems. Denmark sending 19 more French Ceaser units. US package reportedly to be announced today including 100 Strykers and GLSDBs. No new MBT announcements beyond the British Challengers.

I don't envy Ukraine's logistics corps, but that is a lot of high end hardware.

Edit: Also Poland PM reportedly saying they will send leopards with or without Germany's consent. I wonder what the consequences of breaking export agreements would be, or if in this case Germany is happy to have Poland send them without having to officially approve it. They could always refuse to sell arms to Poland in the future, but that could be a self-inflicted wound both in loss of funds when Poland orders from elsewhere as well as potentially impairing their own national security from a less robust eastern buffer with Russia.

Poland isn't going to be buying much of anything military from Germany right now, nor is anybody else. Germany is in such bad shape militarily that they are going to need 400% of their military industrial complex building stuff for Germany, that is if they can ever get organized and procure it. I posted this before from another source, but it tells the story. https://wtvbam.com/2023/01/15/repaired-g...aker-says/
Remember that. 2024 at the earliest. Poland is ordering from Korea who has better pricing, better delivery, and few/no export restrictions. Even if their hardware isn't perfect, at least you can get it. Germany could release Poland from the export restrictions on what Poland already has in terms of tanks, but so far they haven't. On the political front, I would have been considered insane 20 years ago if I said appointing a Defense Minister who was SPD would be a good thing. Today it is.

German politicians have their hands in various Russian-related financial interests; it's painful to watch their actions right now...



Also, are there any more spare MiG planes/parts in ex-bloc NATO countries that we could backfill with US F-16s?  Or has that already been tapped out?

I think it is pretty well exhausted. Even when it existed, it was pretty meager pickings. Better than nothing but still small numbers.

Glad to see the hardware coming in as reports of further Rus/Belarussian activity continue to roll in.  The Russians continue to rely on Stalin's maxim that quantity is sometimes a quality of its own.

Yes, and we in NATO continue to rely on superior equipment expertly operated by well trained troops. In Ukraine, the expertly operated and well trained part is harder to produce. This is not because the Ukrainians can't be trained, but rather because it takes time. That is the problem with the NATO approach. Your advantage over the enemies superior numbers is your superior equipment. That superiority rests on your ability to utilize the equipment expertly and fully. That takes training, and there is no way around that. NATO undoubtedly takes longer than necessary when there is no war on, but even allowing for that, the time is significant. Some weapons are easier to use than others. An F-16 is lots harder on many levels than a Bradley, which in turn is much harder to learn than a Javelin.

So far, we have been fortunate that Russian leadership has pretty much failed on both a tactical and a strategic level. That helps cancel out some of their numerical advantage. It isn't wise to assume that failure will persist. We can hope so, but don't count on it. As long as they keep trying, they might get it right. We need to get Ukraine trained up before they do.

[Goose]

Another big day for Ukranian support. Sweden sending 50 CV90s (newer Bradley equivalent) and undisclosed number of Archer artillery systems. Denmark sending 19 more French Ceaser units. US package reportedly to be announced today including 100 Strykers and GLSDBs. No new MBT announcements beyond the British Challengers.

I don't envy Ukraine's logistics corps, but that is a lot of high end hardware.

Edit: Also Poland PM reportedly saying they will send leopards with or without Germany's consent. I wonder what the consequences of breaking export agreements would be, or if in this case Germany is happy to have Poland send them without having to officially approve it. They could always refuse to sell arms to Poland in the future, but that could be a self-inflicted wound both in loss of funds when Poland orders from elsewhere as well as potentially impairing their own national security from a less robust eastern buffer with Russia.

Poland isn't going to be buying much of anything military from Germany right now, nor is anybody else. Germany is in such bad shape militarily that they are going to need 400% of their military industrial complex building stuff for Germany, that is if they can ever get organized and procure it. I posted this before from another source, but it tells the story. https://wtvbam.com/2023/01/15/repaired-g...aker-says/
Remember that. 2024 at the earliest. Poland is ordering from Korea who has better pricing, better delivery, and few/no export restrictions. Even if their hardware isn't perfect, at least you can get it. Germany could release Poland from the export restrictions on what Poland already has in terms of tanks, but so far they haven't. On the political front, I would have been considered insane 20 years ago if I said appointing a Defense Minister who was SPD would be a good thing. Today it is.

German politicians have their hands in various Russian-related financial interests; it's painful to watch their actions right now...



Also, are there any more spare MiG planes/parts in ex-bloc NATO countries that we could backfill with US F-16s?  Or has that already been tapped out?

I think it is pretty well exhausted. Even when it existed, it was pretty meager pickings. Better than nothing but still small numbers.

Glad to see the hardware coming in as reports of further Rus/Belarussian activity continue to roll in.  The Russians continue to rely on Stalin's maxim that quantity is sometimes a quality of its own.

Yes, and we in NATO continue to rely on superior equipment expertly operated by well trained troops. In Ukraine, the expertly operated and well trained part is harder to produce. This is not because the Ukrainians can't be trained, but rather because it takes time. That is the problem with the NATO approach. Your advantage over the enemies superior numbers is your superior equipment. That superiority rests on your ability to utilize the equipment expertly and fully. That takes training, and there is no way around that. NATO undoubtedly takes longer than necessary when there is no war on, but even allowing for that, the time is significant. Some weapons are easier to use than others. An F-16 is lots harder on many levels than a Bradley, which in turn is much harder to learn than a Javelin.

So far, we have been fortunate that Russian leadership has pretty much failed on both a tactical and a strategic level. That helps cancel out some of their numerical advantage. It isn't wise to assume that failure will persist. We can hope so, but don't count on it. As long as they keep trying, they might get it right. We need to get Ukraine trained up before they do.

[OutsiderFan]

Nice to see growing support for more of an "all-in" or at least "a lot more" approach to Ukraine, being amplified today. War is not a dip your toe in and don't go in if it's chilly endeavor. It is a jump in with both feet one. That's who wins, whoever is willing to go to the mat to win.

It's just outrageous to allow so many innocent people to suffer and die with half-measures to stop it. The notion Russia might be provoked into mutually assured destruction is not supported by evidence. Russia has a long established track record of backing down when pushed back on hard - like any bully does - and imposing on others when its threats are not pushed back on. If it can be sent and work to defeat Russia, send it. It's long past time, armor, air craft, missiles, whatever. Ability to hit inside Crimea or Russia should be a prerequisite, not a deal breaker, if the goal is to stop the war. 

It is really, really dumb to spend so much on half measures that just give you a stalemate or prolonged war. If there is anything war has taught us, it's that to end them, one or both parties has to quit because they have suffered too much or been exhausted to the point they can't fight any longer. The West is not losing to Russia if it makes the commitment to do so. The stronger and more decisive that commitment is, the more pain Russia will experience and the faster the war will end.

[OutsiderFan]

Nice to see growing support for more of an "all-in" or at least "a lot more" approach to Ukraine, being amplified today. War is not a dip your toe in and don't go in if it's chilly endeavor. It is a jump in with both feet one. That's who wins, whoever is willing to go to the mat to win.

It's just outrageous to allow so many innocent people to suffer and die with half-measures to stop it. The notion Russia might be provoked into mutually assured destruction is not supported by evidence. Russia has a long established track record of backing down when pushed back on hard - like any bully does - and imposing on others when its threats are not pushed back on. If it can be sent and work to defeat Russia, send it. It's long past time, armor, air craft, missiles, whatever. Ability to hit inside Crimea or Russia should be a prerequisite, not a deal breaker, if the goal is to stop the war. 

It is really, really dumb to spend so much on half measures that just give you a stalemate or prolonged war. If there is anything war has taught us, it's that to end them, one or both parties has to quit because they have suffered too much or been exhausted to the point they can't fight any longer. The West is not losing to Russia if it makes the commitment to do so. The stronger and more decisive that commitment is, the more pain Russia will experience and the faster the war will end.

[TrumpCard]

This was interesting to me:  https://app.23degrees.io/view/DUeaa54W7K...h-eu-share

This indicates that the US has given more aid to Ukraine than the next 8 biggest contributors combined. And there’s a significant dropoff after the that next group of 8. Really it’s the US and then everyone else. That is not to say the US is wrong. I’m suggesting that others, especially those geographically closer to Ukraine, need to pony up more.

[TrumpCard]

This was interesting to me:  https://app.23degrees.io/view/DUeaa54W7K...h-eu-share

This indicates that the US has given more aid to Ukraine than the next 8 biggest contributors combined. And there’s a significant dropoff after the that next group of 8. Really it’s the US and then everyone else. That is not to say the US is wrong. I’m suggesting that others, especially those geographically closer to Ukraine, need to pony up more.

[Goose]

This was interesting to me:  https://app.23degrees.io/view/DUeaa54W7K...h-eu-share

This indicates that the US has given more aid to Ukraine than the next 8 biggest contributors combined. And there’s a significant dropoff after the that next group of 8. Really it’s the US and then everyone else. That is not to say the US is wrong. I’m suggesting that others, especially those geographically closer to Ukraine, need to pony up more.

It would be nice, but they just don't have "more" militarily. Much of what the UK is giving is stuff that is available surplus because they are downsizing again. Germany is a mess we have already discussed. France maintains a parity with Germany, so they are largely in the same boat. What can happen, and is to some extent, is that the EU can pony up the money to keep Ukraine going economically. The Dutch can help there as well, even though militarily they are not in a position to help.

[Goose]

This was interesting to me:  https://app.23degrees.io/view/DUeaa54W7K...h-eu-share

This indicates that the US has given more aid to Ukraine than the next 8 biggest contributors combined. And there’s a significant dropoff after the that next group of 8. Really it’s the US and then everyone else. That is not to say the US is wrong. I’m suggesting that others, especially those geographically closer to Ukraine, need to pony up more.

It would be nice, but they just don't have "more" militarily. Much of what the UK is giving is stuff that is available surplus because they are downsizing again. Germany is a mess we have already discussed. France maintains a parity with Germany, so they are largely in the same boat. What can happen, and is to some extent, is that the EU can pony up the money to keep Ukraine going economically. The Dutch can help there as well, even though militarily they are not in a position to help.

[TrumpCard]

Yes, money would help a lot.  Humanitarian aid.  Infrastructure repair.  Money to buy arms elsewhere, like from Turkey.  But I also have read that Europe could scrounge and find 100 Leopard tanks under the couch cushions.

[TrumpCard]

Yes, money would help a lot.  Humanitarian aid.  Infrastructure repair.  Money to buy arms elsewhere, like from Turkey.  But I also have read that Europe could scrounge and find 100 Leopard tanks under the couch cushions.

[gocard14]

This was interesting to me:  https://app.23degrees.io/view/DUeaa54W7K...h-eu-share

This indicates that the US has given more aid to Ukraine than the next 8 biggest contributors combined. And there’s a significant dropoff after the that next group of 8. Really it’s the US and then everyone else. That is not to say the US is wrong. I’m suggesting that others, especially those geographically closer to Ukraine, need to pony up more.

To be fair, we should look at the donations in context of country economy size. Looking at donations as a share of GDP, Estonia, Czech Republic, many of the Baltic states are in to top of the donation list.

In 2022 we gave about 23 billion in military aid (about as much in economic/humanitarian aid, much of which is loans). That’s about 0.1% of GDP. Estonia is up over 1% or GDP.

[gocard14]

This was interesting to me:  https://app.23degrees.io/view/DUeaa54W7K...h-eu-share

This indicates that the US has given more aid to Ukraine than the next 8 biggest contributors combined. And there’s a significant dropoff after the that next group of 8. Really it’s the US and then everyone else. That is not to say the US is wrong. I’m suggesting that others, especially those geographically closer to Ukraine, need to pony up more.

To be fair, we should look at the donations in context of country economy size. Looking at donations as a share of GDP, Estonia, Czech Republic, many of the Baltic states are in to top of the donation list.

In 2022 we gave about 23 billion in military aid (about as much in economic/humanitarian aid, much of which is loans). That’s about 0.1% of GDP. Estonia is up over 1% or GDP.

[TrumpCard]

Donations/GDP is a reasonable factor to consider.  The U.S. is close to 0.2% of GDP with 47.82 billion in aid compared to 25 trillion in GDP.  Germany is higher at 0.3%.  Still, given Germany's proximity to the events, I would expect a lot higher percent from them than from the US.  I'm not asking for more from the Baltics (since I know they give a lot proportionally), and I'm not even saying that Germany should match the Baltics' percent of GDP in contributions.  But if Germany matched Poland at 0.6%, that would be another 12.5 billion in much needed aid, which buys a lot of Leopard tanks.

[TrumpCard]

Donations/GDP is a reasonable factor to consider.  The U.S. is close to 0.2% of GDP with 47.82 billion in aid compared to 25 trillion in GDP.  Germany is higher at 0.3%.  Still, given Germany's proximity to the events, I would expect a lot higher percent from them than from the US.  I'm not asking for more from the Baltics (since I know they give a lot proportionally), and I'm not even saying that Germany should match the Baltics' percent of GDP in contributions.  But if Germany matched Poland at 0.6%, that would be another 12.5 billion in much needed aid, which buys a lot of Leopard tanks.

[dabigv13]

Big new defense package today. 59 more Bradley's in addition to the earlier 50, and 90 Stryker APCs (the specific variant, whether TOW equipped, 50 cal, 25mm, or 105mm not specified). US has surplus of lots of them reportedly as they are being phased out.

Not included yet apparently- the GLSDBs we were excited about.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1616207810093584405?s=20&t=WDcQ26lRZHSy2lNVPKRtmg[/tweet]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1616209218041692167?s=20&t=WDcQ26lRZHSy2lNVPKRtmg[/tweet]

Interesting

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...ne-russia/

CIA Director William J. Burns traveled in secret to Ukraine’s capital at the end of last week to brief President Volodymyr Zelensky on his expectations for what Russia is planning militarily in the coming weeks and months, said a U.S. official and other people familiar with the visit.

Regarding Leopards-

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1616219101541588992?s=20&t=ukcfrsiaLV2aronDXwxoqg[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

Big new defense package today. 59 more Bradley's in addition to the earlier 50, and 90 Stryker APCs (the specific variant, whether TOW equipped, 50 cal, 25mm, or 105mm not specified). US has surplus of lots of them reportedly as they are being phased out.

Not included yet apparently- the GLSDBs we were excited about.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1616207810093584405?s=20&t=WDcQ26lRZHSy2lNVPKRtmg[/tweet]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1616209218041692167?s=20&t=WDcQ26lRZHSy2lNVPKRtmg[/tweet]

Interesting

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...ne-russia/

CIA Director William J. Burns traveled in secret to Ukraine’s capital at the end of last week to brief President Volodymyr Zelensky on his expectations for what Russia is planning militarily in the coming weeks and months, said a U.S. official and other people familiar with the visit.

Regarding Leopards-

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1616219101541588992?s=20&t=ukcfrsiaLV2aronDXwxoqg[/tweet]

[Goose]

Yes, money would help a lot.  Humanitarian aid.  Infrastructure repair.  Money to buy arms elsewhere, like from Turkey.  But I also have read that Europe could scrounge and find 100 Leopard tanks under the couch cushions.

Probably so, but they would also be in the same condition as the things you find under couch cushions :-). Even Germany's "first line" tanks are not it great shape, and they aren't going to give any of them up unless they get 1 for 1 replacements from the US. We can actually do that, as we have lots of "surplus" Abrams that are "runners". They aren't however the latest and greatest, except the ones the Marines just gave up. We all remember Spain said they had lots of Leopards in storage and later admitted they weren't in any condition to use. One other fact to remember is that a lot of the Leopards present in Europe are twice sold old cold war stock. They are at best well used, even if they are upgraded. They are also often not of a uniform configuration, since they were purchased/donated by different countries at different times. The EU nations haven't been much interested in keeping a stock of running tanks. Belgium sold every one of theirs. The Dutch did too, although after further review they bought some of them back. https://partyardmilitary.com/2022/03/04/...therlands/ Many of the Leopards in storage have the "old" 105 mm gun. Germany transferred a bunch of Leopards to Poland, and then as I remember Poland actually bough some more. Now Poland is buying Korean. It isn't going to be easy to find these tanks quickly unless some countries are willing to give up their own military's tanks.

[Goose]

Yes, money would help a lot.  Humanitarian aid.  Infrastructure repair.  Money to buy arms elsewhere, like from Turkey.  But I also have read that Europe could scrounge and find 100 Leopard tanks under the couch cushions.

Probably so, but they would also be in the same condition as the things you find under couch cushions :-). Even Germany's "first line" tanks are not it great shape, and they aren't going to give any of them up unless they get 1 for 1 replacements from the US. We can actually do that, as we have lots of "surplus" Abrams that are "runners". They aren't however the latest and greatest, except the ones the Marines just gave up. We all remember Spain said they had lots of Leopards in storage and later admitted they weren't in any condition to use. One other fact to remember is that a lot of the Leopards present in Europe are twice sold old cold war stock. They are at best well used, even if they are upgraded. They are also often not of a uniform configuration, since they were purchased/donated by different countries at different times. The EU nations haven't been much interested in keeping a stock of running tanks. Belgium sold every one of theirs. The Dutch did too, although after further review they bought some of them back. https://partyardmilitary.com/2022/03/04/...therlands/ Many of the Leopards in storage have the "old" 105 mm gun. Germany transferred a bunch of Leopards to Poland, and then as I remember Poland actually bough some more. Now Poland is buying Korean. It isn't going to be easy to find these tanks quickly unless some countries are willing to give up their own military's tanks.