(03-21-2023, 02:21 PM)lex24 Wrote:True. On top of that, it would give China's Navy Vlad and Petr. Their submarines would replace the Russian ones in Petr, making the North Pacific a contested zone against a Navy that is larger than ours and is rapidly expanding. The Russian Pacific Fleet is nothing by comparison. It would also put China in a position to directly threaten the SLOC to Japan and Korea. Not to mention it would give them enough energy resources to survive a blockade of middle eastern energy sources. It would also put China on the Canadian and US border. It would make defending against the Chinese assertion of sovereignty in the South China Sea (and the 9 dash line) even more risky that it already was. Russia doesn't have such ambitions or any ability to exercise such military force in the Far East. Other than that, it is just fine.(03-21-2023, 02:16 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Please explain how China gaining Russian territory is so much worse than Russia having it.
Because China is a significantly bigger threat to the US than Russia. China is an economic giant. Russias economy is weak. The last thing the US or the world needs is China expanding. Add that Russians probable response would be nuclear and it’s a nightmare anyway you slice it.
Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine
(03-21-2023, 02:21 PM)lex24 Wrote:True. On top of that, it would give China's Navy Vlad and Petr. Their submarines would replace the Russian ones in Petr, making the North Pacific a contested zone against a Navy that is larger than ours and is rapidly expanding. The Russian Pacific Fleet is nothing by comparison. It would also put China in a position to directly threaten the SLOC to Japan and Korea. Not to mention it would give them enough energy resources to survive a blockade of middle eastern energy sources. It would also put China on the Canadian and US border. It would make defending against the Chinese assertion of sovereignty in the South China Sea (and the 9 dash line) even more risky that it already was. Russia doesn't have such ambitions or any ability to exercise such military force in the Far East. Other than that, it is just fine.(03-21-2023, 02:16 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Please explain how China gaining Russian territory is so much worse than Russia having it.
Because China is a significantly bigger threat to the US than Russia. China is an economic giant. Russias economy is weak. The last thing the US or the world needs is China expanding. Add that Russians probable response would be nuclear and it’s a nightmare anyway you slice it.
03-21-2023, 05:03 PM
Well, be that (China capturing Russia being bad) as it may, if you look at how the world tends to work (consolidation and rich get richer), it's kind of inevitable that China becomes a larger power by if not taking over Russia, effectively controlling it or using its resources to its liking. What's to stop China from using those same bases now?
I see China/Russia as two sides of the same coin.
I see China/Russia as two sides of the same coin.
Well, be that (China capturing Russia being bad) as it may, if you look at how the world tends to work (consolidation and rich get richer), it's kind of inevitable that China becomes a larger power by if not taking over Russia, effectively controlling it or using its resources to its liking. What's to stop China from using those same bases now?
I see China/Russia as two sides of the same coin.
I see China/Russia as two sides of the same coin.
03-21-2023, 05:07 PM
(03-21-2023, 05:03 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Well, be that (China capturing Russia being bad) as it may, if you look at how the world tends to work (consolidation and rich get richer), it's kind of inevitable that China becomes a larger power by if not taking over Russia, effectively controlling it or using its resources to its liking. What's to stop China from using those same bases now?
Um, the Russians. . . .
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(03-21-2023, 05:03 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Well, be that (China capturing Russia being bad) as it may, if you look at how the world tends to work (consolidation and rich get richer), it's kind of inevitable that China becomes a larger power by if not taking over Russia, effectively controlling it or using its resources to its liking. What's to stop China from using those same bases now?
Um, the Russians. . . .
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
You lost me with this argument, OF. Ceding China strategic control of the North Atlantic plus all of the resources of Siberia seems like a very, very bad idea.
Luckily Russia would welcome this about as much as TSA Agents welcome passengers with handguns in their pockets so I won't worry too much about it!
Luckily Russia would welcome this about as much as TSA Agents welcome passengers with handguns in their pockets so I won't worry too much about it!
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
(This post was last modified: 03-21-2023, 05:29 PM by Leftcoast.)
You lost me with this argument, OF. Ceding China strategic control of the North Atlantic plus all of the resources of Siberia seems like a very, very bad idea.
Luckily Russia would welcome this about as much as TSA Agents welcome passengers with handguns in their pockets so I won't worry too much about it!
Luckily Russia would welcome this about as much as TSA Agents welcome passengers with handguns in their pockets so I won't worry too much about it!
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
The interests of Russia and China are far from identical and both sides are fully aware of that fact. In the 1950s the US was absolutely convinced that Mao was a Russian puppet and that Russia would effectively control China. It was inevitable because Russia was a world power and China was a backward third-world country :-). Obviously that is not exactly what happened. During the Cold War Russia and China fought a few pitched battles over the boundaries of central Asia.The book The Bear and The Dragon was fiction, but the military details it contains are not. Those tank unloading points exist, and today tanks are loaded there for shipment to fight in Ukraine. That book was not written in a vacuum. No Russian government is going to sit idle while half their country is hijacked, and if reading the book gives food for thought about the US response, that is probably a good thing at this point.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukrainians-ri...00602.html
Some good thoughts on the state of Ukrainian mechanization efforts. I unsurprisingly like his take on the Ukrainian mechanized infantry situation. It is difficult to understate how hard it is to create a military formation "from scratch" using unfamiliar foreign equipment and tactics. Ukraine has done a lot along those lines, and the next "offensive" may be asking them to do a lot more. It is very, very difficult. There have also been some statements recently by both US and NATO "principals" indicating that Ukraine really has to succeed in their next effort. A good example:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/czech-pre...29476.html
I believe it is imperative that the US start creating the groundwork for what must be done in case Ukraine can't do this. As previously noted, generating an armored division (or even brigade) from nothing in a few months is real, real, difficult. Ukraine was supposed to be doing this last summer but it didn't happen. I don't know the "whys" of it, but it may be that NATO was unwilling to do the training and supply the IFVs/Tanks necessary. If that is the case, it is on us, not Ukraine. That isn't the case now, but it may take more time than many are willing to give Ukraine. That can't happen. When the US and NATO got into this thing, we married our credibility to Ukraine's success. We must ensure said success, come what may.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukrainians-ri...00602.html
Some good thoughts on the state of Ukrainian mechanization efforts. I unsurprisingly like his take on the Ukrainian mechanized infantry situation. It is difficult to understate how hard it is to create a military formation "from scratch" using unfamiliar foreign equipment and tactics. Ukraine has done a lot along those lines, and the next "offensive" may be asking them to do a lot more. It is very, very difficult. There have also been some statements recently by both US and NATO "principals" indicating that Ukraine really has to succeed in their next effort. A good example:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/czech-pre...29476.html
I believe it is imperative that the US start creating the groundwork for what must be done in case Ukraine can't do this. As previously noted, generating an armored division (or even brigade) from nothing in a few months is real, real, difficult. Ukraine was supposed to be doing this last summer but it didn't happen. I don't know the "whys" of it, but it may be that NATO was unwilling to do the training and supply the IFVs/Tanks necessary. If that is the case, it is on us, not Ukraine. That isn't the case now, but it may take more time than many are willing to give Ukraine. That can't happen. When the US and NATO got into this thing, we married our credibility to Ukraine's success. We must ensure said success, come what may.
The interests of Russia and China are far from identical and both sides are fully aware of that fact. In the 1950s the US was absolutely convinced that Mao was a Russian puppet and that Russia would effectively control China. It was inevitable because Russia was a world power and China was a backward third-world country :-). Obviously that is not exactly what happened. During the Cold War Russia and China fought a few pitched battles over the boundaries of central Asia.The book The Bear and The Dragon was fiction, but the military details it contains are not. Those tank unloading points exist, and today tanks are loaded there for shipment to fight in Ukraine. That book was not written in a vacuum. No Russian government is going to sit idle while half their country is hijacked, and if reading the book gives food for thought about the US response, that is probably a good thing at this point.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukrainians-ri...00602.html
Some good thoughts on the state of Ukrainian mechanization efforts. I unsurprisingly like his take on the Ukrainian mechanized infantry situation. It is difficult to understate how hard it is to create a military formation "from scratch" using unfamiliar foreign equipment and tactics. Ukraine has done a lot along those lines, and the next "offensive" may be asking them to do a lot more. It is very, very difficult. There have also been some statements recently by both US and NATO "principals" indicating that Ukraine really has to succeed in their next effort. A good example:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/czech-pre...29476.html
I believe it is imperative that the US start creating the groundwork for what must be done in case Ukraine can't do this. As previously noted, generating an armored division (or even brigade) from nothing in a few months is real, real, difficult. Ukraine was supposed to be doing this last summer but it didn't happen. I don't know the "whys" of it, but it may be that NATO was unwilling to do the training and supply the IFVs/Tanks necessary. If that is the case, it is on us, not Ukraine. That isn't the case now, but it may take more time than many are willing to give Ukraine. That can't happen. When the US and NATO got into this thing, we married our credibility to Ukraine's success. We must ensure said success, come what may.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukrainians-ri...00602.html
Some good thoughts on the state of Ukrainian mechanization efforts. I unsurprisingly like his take on the Ukrainian mechanized infantry situation. It is difficult to understate how hard it is to create a military formation "from scratch" using unfamiliar foreign equipment and tactics. Ukraine has done a lot along those lines, and the next "offensive" may be asking them to do a lot more. It is very, very difficult. There have also been some statements recently by both US and NATO "principals" indicating that Ukraine really has to succeed in their next effort. A good example:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/czech-pre...29476.html
I believe it is imperative that the US start creating the groundwork for what must be done in case Ukraine can't do this. As previously noted, generating an armored division (or even brigade) from nothing in a few months is real, real, difficult. Ukraine was supposed to be doing this last summer but it didn't happen. I don't know the "whys" of it, but it may be that NATO was unwilling to do the training and supply the IFVs/Tanks necessary. If that is the case, it is on us, not Ukraine. That isn't the case now, but it may take more time than many are willing to give Ukraine. That can't happen. When the US and NATO got into this thing, we married our credibility to Ukraine's success. We must ensure said success, come what may.
03-21-2023, 07:45 PM
M1 Abrams tanks coming this fall.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/danlamothe/status/1638317797737476096?s=46&t=tTMJoVUyV69NbVTC5DVNgw[/tweet]
BC
[tweet]https://twitter.com/danlamothe/status/1638317797737476096?s=46&t=tTMJoVUyV69NbVTC5DVNgw[/tweet]
BC
M1 Abrams tanks coming this fall.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/danlamothe/status/1638317797737476096?s=46&t=tTMJoVUyV69NbVTC5DVNgw[/tweet]
BC
[tweet]https://twitter.com/danlamothe/status/1638317797737476096?s=46&t=tTMJoVUyV69NbVTC5DVNgw[/tweet]
BC
03-21-2023, 08:48 PM
(03-21-2023, 07:45 PM)BostonCard Wrote: M1 Abrams tanks coming this fall.Still way too slow. Imagine if we, the US, got involved in a war with a peer competitor and needed more tanks ASAP. Would it take six months or more? If so, there is really something wrong with our war planning. If not, why does it take that long for Ukraine? The whole thing could be over by fall. Why was our initial "plan", which was obviously going to take a loooong time, too long to make it practical, even considered? Lots of issues here IMO.
https://twitter.com/danlamothe/status/16...bVTC5DVNgw
BC
(03-21-2023, 07:45 PM)BostonCard Wrote: M1 Abrams tanks coming this fall.Still way too slow. Imagine if we, the US, got involved in a war with a peer competitor and needed more tanks ASAP. Would it take six months or more? If so, there is really something wrong with our war planning. If not, why does it take that long for Ukraine? The whole thing could be over by fall. Why was our initial "plan", which was obviously going to take a loooong time, too long to make it practical, even considered? Lots of issues here IMO.
https://twitter.com/danlamothe/status/16...bVTC5DVNgw
BC
03-22-2023, 08:35 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/vote-setback-...52651.html
And the beat goes on. What happens in Türkiye is obviously important to the NATO admission of Sweden. It is also important to the "southern flank" of NATO. It is probable that Erdogan's opponent is more palatable to NATO and the US than Erdogan, but it is also probable the "new" president would have some issues with how strong their government would be. Erdogan has wielded power for a long time and that won't just disappear. Best case, their is an "orderly" transfer of power and Türkiye makes the USA look like a "banana republic" in that regard. Unfortunately, I wouldn't bet on that outcome.
I just don't see Erdogan going into an election that he thinks he will lose. There is quite a bit for time between now and May 14. There are lots of things he can do to make himself "more popular". IMO that won't be enough, but I certainly am not in a position to know. The earthquake reminded people that Erdogan had been originally elected to clean up corrupt practices and has not done so. There were lots of other issues that may have got Erdogan beat, but this issue was the "last straw" for many. Given that, does he try to postpone the election? Does he try to retain power and cancel it? Does he hold the election and falsify the result? What does the army do? In the past, despite the fact the EU and NATO didn't like it, the army in Türkiye functioned as the "adult in the room". When the politicians got it all messed up, the army would take over for a few years, get the mess sorted out, and then return power to the politicians. Erdogan has greatly reduced their ability or willingness to do that, so that safety net may not be there. It could be "interesting". I hope it isn't and a fair, honest election is held. I am not confident that will happen however.
And the beat goes on. What happens in Türkiye is obviously important to the NATO admission of Sweden. It is also important to the "southern flank" of NATO. It is probable that Erdogan's opponent is more palatable to NATO and the US than Erdogan, but it is also probable the "new" president would have some issues with how strong their government would be. Erdogan has wielded power for a long time and that won't just disappear. Best case, their is an "orderly" transfer of power and Türkiye makes the USA look like a "banana republic" in that regard. Unfortunately, I wouldn't bet on that outcome.
I just don't see Erdogan going into an election that he thinks he will lose. There is quite a bit for time between now and May 14. There are lots of things he can do to make himself "more popular". IMO that won't be enough, but I certainly am not in a position to know. The earthquake reminded people that Erdogan had been originally elected to clean up corrupt practices and has not done so. There were lots of other issues that may have got Erdogan beat, but this issue was the "last straw" for many. Given that, does he try to postpone the election? Does he try to retain power and cancel it? Does he hold the election and falsify the result? What does the army do? In the past, despite the fact the EU and NATO didn't like it, the army in Türkiye functioned as the "adult in the room". When the politicians got it all messed up, the army would take over for a few years, get the mess sorted out, and then return power to the politicians. Erdogan has greatly reduced their ability or willingness to do that, so that safety net may not be there. It could be "interesting". I hope it isn't and a fair, honest election is held. I am not confident that will happen however.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/vote-setback-...52651.html
And the beat goes on. What happens in Türkiye is obviously important to the NATO admission of Sweden. It is also important to the "southern flank" of NATO. It is probable that Erdogan's opponent is more palatable to NATO and the US than Erdogan, but it is also probable the "new" president would have some issues with how strong their government would be. Erdogan has wielded power for a long time and that won't just disappear. Best case, their is an "orderly" transfer of power and Türkiye makes the USA look like a "banana republic" in that regard. Unfortunately, I wouldn't bet on that outcome.
I just don't see Erdogan going into an election that he thinks he will lose. There is quite a bit for time between now and May 14. There are lots of things he can do to make himself "more popular". IMO that won't be enough, but I certainly am not in a position to know. The earthquake reminded people that Erdogan had been originally elected to clean up corrupt practices and has not done so. There were lots of other issues that may have got Erdogan beat, but this issue was the "last straw" for many. Given that, does he try to postpone the election? Does he try to retain power and cancel it? Does he hold the election and falsify the result? What does the army do? In the past, despite the fact the EU and NATO didn't like it, the army in Türkiye functioned as the "adult in the room". When the politicians got it all messed up, the army would take over for a few years, get the mess sorted out, and then return power to the politicians. Erdogan has greatly reduced their ability or willingness to do that, so that safety net may not be there. It could be "interesting". I hope it isn't and a fair, honest election is held. I am not confident that will happen however.
And the beat goes on. What happens in Türkiye is obviously important to the NATO admission of Sweden. It is also important to the "southern flank" of NATO. It is probable that Erdogan's opponent is more palatable to NATO and the US than Erdogan, but it is also probable the "new" president would have some issues with how strong their government would be. Erdogan has wielded power for a long time and that won't just disappear. Best case, their is an "orderly" transfer of power and Türkiye makes the USA look like a "banana republic" in that regard. Unfortunately, I wouldn't bet on that outcome.
I just don't see Erdogan going into an election that he thinks he will lose. There is quite a bit for time between now and May 14. There are lots of things he can do to make himself "more popular". IMO that won't be enough, but I certainly am not in a position to know. The earthquake reminded people that Erdogan had been originally elected to clean up corrupt practices and has not done so. There were lots of other issues that may have got Erdogan beat, but this issue was the "last straw" for many. Given that, does he try to postpone the election? Does he try to retain power and cancel it? Does he hold the election and falsify the result? What does the army do? In the past, despite the fact the EU and NATO didn't like it, the army in Türkiye functioned as the "adult in the room". When the politicians got it all messed up, the army would take over for a few years, get the mess sorted out, and then return power to the politicians. Erdogan has greatly reduced their ability or willingness to do that, so that safety net may not be there. It could be "interesting". I hope it isn't and a fair, honest election is held. I am not confident that will happen however.
03-22-2023, 09:52 AM
Apologies if this has been posted before, but the U. S. will be delivering M1A1 tanks from existing stock. Quicker delivery, and easier to learn than the M1A2 (we'd originally promised 32 of those, but they would have had to have been built).
US speeds up Abrams tank delivery to Ukraine war zone | AP News
And the IMF is coming through with a $15.6 billion loan to shore up Ukraine's government finances:
Ukraine, IMF agree on $15.6 billion loan package | AP News
US speeds up Abrams tank delivery to Ukraine war zone | AP News
And the IMF is coming through with a $15.6 billion loan to shore up Ukraine's government finances:
Ukraine, IMF agree on $15.6 billion loan package | AP News
Audaces fortuna iuvat
Apologies if this has been posted before, but the U. S. will be delivering M1A1 tanks from existing stock. Quicker delivery, and easier to learn than the M1A2 (we'd originally promised 32 of those, but they would have had to have been built).
US speeds up Abrams tank delivery to Ukraine war zone | AP News
And the IMF is coming through with a $15.6 billion loan to shore up Ukraine's government finances:
Ukraine, IMF agree on $15.6 billion loan package | AP News
US speeds up Abrams tank delivery to Ukraine war zone | AP News
And the IMF is coming through with a $15.6 billion loan to shore up Ukraine's government finances:
Ukraine, IMF agree on $15.6 billion loan package | AP News
Audaces fortuna iuvat
03-22-2023, 10:10 AM
France is also reportedly training 30 ukranian pilots on the Mirage 2000, the 4th gen predecessor to the Rafale. They started in February after Macron's visit to Ukraine.
https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/la...e-20230322
https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/la...e-20230322
France is also reportedly training 30 ukranian pilots on the Mirage 2000, the 4th gen predecessor to the Rafale. They started in February after Macron's visit to Ukraine.
https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/la...e-20230322
https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/la...e-20230322
03-22-2023, 07:16 PM
[tweet]https://twitter.com/bfichter/status/1638548371815256067?s=46&t=tTMJoVUyV69NbVTC5DVNgw[/tweet]
Surely we are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. These tanks are 70 years old!
Maybe it’s the same strategy as sending waves of all but unarmed men into Bakhmut, just trying to smoke out Ukranian defenses?
BC
Surely we are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. These tanks are 70 years old!
Maybe it’s the same strategy as sending waves of all but unarmed men into Bakhmut, just trying to smoke out Ukranian defenses?
BC
[tweet]https://twitter.com/bfichter/status/1638548371815256067?s=46&t=tTMJoVUyV69NbVTC5DVNgw[/tweet]
Surely we are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. These tanks are 70 years old!
Maybe it’s the same strategy as sending waves of all but unarmed men into Bakhmut, just trying to smoke out Ukranian defenses?
BC
Surely we are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. These tanks are 70 years old!
Maybe it’s the same strategy as sending waves of all but unarmed men into Bakhmut, just trying to smoke out Ukranian defenses?
BC
03-23-2023, 07:51 AM
(03-22-2023, 07:16 PM)BostonCard Wrote: [tweet]https://twitter.com/bfichter/status/1638548371815256067?s=46&t=tTMJoVUyV69NbVTC5DVNgw[/tweet]
Surely we are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. These tanks are 70 years old!
Maybe it’s the same strategy as sending waves of all but unarmed men into Bakhmut, just trying to smoke out Ukranian defenses?
BC
The T-54/T-55s still have their fuel cells on the outside and thin armor, right? Comparatively slow rate of fire?
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(03-22-2023, 07:16 PM)BostonCard Wrote: [tweet]https://twitter.com/bfichter/status/1638548371815256067?s=46&t=tTMJoVUyV69NbVTC5DVNgw[/tweet]
Surely we are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. These tanks are 70 years old!
Maybe it’s the same strategy as sending waves of all but unarmed men into Bakhmut, just trying to smoke out Ukranian defenses?
BC
The T-54/T-55s still have their fuel cells on the outside and thin armor, right? Comparatively slow rate of fire?
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(03-23-2023, 07:51 AM)Mick Wrote:The T-55s do indeed have a fuel tank on the outside. However, one has to consider what has been going on in Ukraine armor-wise. There basically haven't been any big tank against tank battles. The large number of Russian tanks destroyed has been accomplished via ATGMs and/or indirect fire. Russia undoubtedly intends to use these tanks as mobile artillery. They probably have quite a stock of obsolete 100 mm ammunition that doesn't fit anything else, especially their "modern" tank's 125 mm smoothbore guns. In Ukraine, at least so far, tanks are often used as indirect fire weapons. Not what they are primarily designed for, but it does "work", especially when you have nothing else. This isn't stupid on their part.(03-22-2023, 07:16 PM)BostonCard Wrote: https://twitter.com/bfichter/status/1638...bVTC5DVNgw
Surely we are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. These tanks are 70 years old!
Maybe it’s the same strategy as sending waves of all but unarmed men into Bakhmut, just trying to smoke out Ukranian defenses?
BC
The T-54/T-55s still have their fuel cells on the outside and thin armor, right? Comparatively slow rate of fire?
(03-23-2023, 07:51 AM)Mick Wrote:The T-55s do indeed have a fuel tank on the outside. However, one has to consider what has been going on in Ukraine armor-wise. There basically haven't been any big tank against tank battles. The large number of Russian tanks destroyed has been accomplished via ATGMs and/or indirect fire. Russia undoubtedly intends to use these tanks as mobile artillery. They probably have quite a stock of obsolete 100 mm ammunition that doesn't fit anything else, especially their "modern" tank's 125 mm smoothbore guns. In Ukraine, at least so far, tanks are often used as indirect fire weapons. Not what they are primarily designed for, but it does "work", especially when you have nothing else. This isn't stupid on their part.(03-22-2023, 07:16 PM)BostonCard Wrote: https://twitter.com/bfichter/status/1638...bVTC5DVNgw
Surely we are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. These tanks are 70 years old!
Maybe it’s the same strategy as sending waves of all but unarmed men into Bakhmut, just trying to smoke out Ukranian defenses?
BC
The T-54/T-55s still have their fuel cells on the outside and thin armor, right? Comparatively slow rate of fire?
03-23-2023, 10:58 AM
(03-23-2023, 08:22 AM)Goose Wrote:(03-23-2023, 07:51 AM)Mick Wrote:The T-55s do indeed have a fuel tank on the outside. However, one has to consider what has been going on in Ukraine armor-wise. There basically haven't been any big tank against tank battles. The large number of Russian tanks destroyed has been accomplished via ATGMs and/or indirect fire. Russia undoubtedly intends to use these tanks as mobile artillery. They probably have quite a stock of obsolete 100 mm ammunition that doesn't fit anything else, especially their "modern" tank's 125 mm smoothbore guns. In Ukraine, at least so far, tanks are often used as indirect fire weapons. Not what they are primarily designed for, but it does "work", especially when you have nothing else. This isn't stupid on their part.(03-22-2023, 07:16 PM)BostonCard Wrote: https://twitter.com/bfichter/status/1638...bVTC5DVNgw
Surely we are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. These tanks are 70 years old!
Maybe it’s the same strategy as sending waves of all but unarmed men into Bakhmut, just trying to smoke out Ukranian defenses?
BC
The T-54/T-55s still have their fuel cells on the outside and thin armor, right? Comparatively slow rate of fire?
Many points about the T55s can be true.
1. Using them is the best option for Russia at the moment, and they can still provide value in terms of indirect fire and/or direct fire infantry support, even if survivability will be poor.
2. The fact that Russia needs to dig into stocks of T55s shows the war effort is going poorly and supply of more modern equipment is running low.
(03-23-2023, 08:22 AM)Goose Wrote:(03-23-2023, 07:51 AM)Mick Wrote:The T-55s do indeed have a fuel tank on the outside. However, one has to consider what has been going on in Ukraine armor-wise. There basically haven't been any big tank against tank battles. The large number of Russian tanks destroyed has been accomplished via ATGMs and/or indirect fire. Russia undoubtedly intends to use these tanks as mobile artillery. They probably have quite a stock of obsolete 100 mm ammunition that doesn't fit anything else, especially their "modern" tank's 125 mm smoothbore guns. In Ukraine, at least so far, tanks are often used as indirect fire weapons. Not what they are primarily designed for, but it does "work", especially when you have nothing else. This isn't stupid on their part.(03-22-2023, 07:16 PM)BostonCard Wrote: https://twitter.com/bfichter/status/1638...bVTC5DVNgw
Surely we are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. These tanks are 70 years old!
Maybe it’s the same strategy as sending waves of all but unarmed men into Bakhmut, just trying to smoke out Ukranian defenses?
BC
The T-54/T-55s still have their fuel cells on the outside and thin armor, right? Comparatively slow rate of fire?
Many points about the T55s can be true.
1. Using them is the best option for Russia at the moment, and they can still provide value in terms of indirect fire and/or direct fire infantry support, even if survivability will be poor.
2. The fact that Russia needs to dig into stocks of T55s shows the war effort is going poorly and supply of more modern equipment is running low.
03-23-2023, 11:11 AM
I am as flummoxed as others about why the U.S. is being so damn slow with the tank deliveries - not to mention reticent on ATACMS and air power - but won't the Bradleys and Strykers, plus whatever Ukraine gets from European allies, make a very big contribution to Ukraine's fighting capability before the M1A1s arrive?
I am as flummoxed as others about why the U.S. is being so damn slow with the tank deliveries - not to mention reticent on ATACMS and air power - but won't the Bradleys and Strykers, plus whatever Ukraine gets from European allies, make a very big contribution to Ukraine's fighting capability before the M1A1s arrive?
03-23-2023, 11:30 AM
(03-23-2023, 10:58 AM)gocard14 Wrote:In an indirect fire role, survivability will be on a par with other, more modern Russian tanks. These tanks do not have to, nor expect to, survive a frontal hit by a NATO 120 mm AP sabot. An ATGM will kill them for sure. It will kill a T-72 just as well. It is wise to remember that the Leopard I was not designed to survive such conditions either.(03-23-2023, 08:22 AM)Goose Wrote:(03-23-2023, 07:51 AM)Mick Wrote:The T-55s do indeed have a fuel tank on the outside. However, one has to consider what has been going on in Ukraine armor-wise. There basically haven't been any big tank against tank battles. The large number of Russian tanks destroyed has been accomplished via ATGMs and/or indirect fire. Russia undoubtedly intends to use these tanks as mobile artillery. They probably have quite a stock of obsolete 100 mm ammunition that doesn't fit anything else, especially their "modern" tank's 125 mm smoothbore guns. In Ukraine, at least so far, tanks are often used as indirect fire weapons. Not what they are primarily designed for, but it does "work", especially when you have nothing else. This isn't stupid on their part.(03-22-2023, 07:16 PM)BostonCard Wrote: https://twitter.com/bfichter/status/1638...bVTC5DVNgw
Surely we are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. These tanks are 70 years old!
Maybe it’s the same strategy as sending waves of all but unarmed men into Bakhmut, just trying to smoke out Ukranian defenses?
BC
The T-54/T-55s still have their fuel cells on the outside and thin armor, right? Comparatively slow rate of fire?
Many points about the T55s can be true.
1. Using them is the best option for Russia at the moment, and they can still provide value in terms of indirect fire and/or direct fire infantry support, even if survivability will be poor.
Quote:2. The fact that Russia needs to dig into stocks of T55s shows the war effort is going poorly and supply of more modern equipment is running low.True. It also indicates Russia does not expect any free-wheeling tank advances (at least on their side) any time soon. One also has to question how many of these tanks are "runners". Things that old often break down of their own accord pretty easily.
(03-23-2023, 10:58 AM)gocard14 Wrote:In an indirect fire role, survivability will be on a par with other, more modern Russian tanks. These tanks do not have to, nor expect to, survive a frontal hit by a NATO 120 mm AP sabot. An ATGM will kill them for sure. It will kill a T-72 just as well. It is wise to remember that the Leopard I was not designed to survive such conditions either.(03-23-2023, 08:22 AM)Goose Wrote:(03-23-2023, 07:51 AM)Mick Wrote:The T-55s do indeed have a fuel tank on the outside. However, one has to consider what has been going on in Ukraine armor-wise. There basically haven't been any big tank against tank battles. The large number of Russian tanks destroyed has been accomplished via ATGMs and/or indirect fire. Russia undoubtedly intends to use these tanks as mobile artillery. They probably have quite a stock of obsolete 100 mm ammunition that doesn't fit anything else, especially their "modern" tank's 125 mm smoothbore guns. In Ukraine, at least so far, tanks are often used as indirect fire weapons. Not what they are primarily designed for, but it does "work", especially when you have nothing else. This isn't stupid on their part.(03-22-2023, 07:16 PM)BostonCard Wrote: https://twitter.com/bfichter/status/1638...bVTC5DVNgw
Surely we are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. These tanks are 70 years old!
Maybe it’s the same strategy as sending waves of all but unarmed men into Bakhmut, just trying to smoke out Ukranian defenses?
BC
The T-54/T-55s still have their fuel cells on the outside and thin armor, right? Comparatively slow rate of fire?
Many points about the T55s can be true.
1. Using them is the best option for Russia at the moment, and they can still provide value in terms of indirect fire and/or direct fire infantry support, even if survivability will be poor.
Quote:2. The fact that Russia needs to dig into stocks of T55s shows the war effort is going poorly and supply of more modern equipment is running low.True. It also indicates Russia does not expect any free-wheeling tank advances (at least on their side) any time soon. One also has to question how many of these tanks are "runners". Things that old often break down of their own accord pretty easily.
03-23-2023, 03:17 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/even-possible...00142.html
This article provides confirmation that the HARM missiles operating from the Ukrainian aircraft are very limited. It is indeed "pre-programmed" mode only. Better than nothing, but not much. The comments also confirm that the "upgrades" to the MIGs by Poland and Slovakia do not include any additional weapons capability. The improved communications and IFF, while essential to NATO operations, does absolutely nothing for use by Ukraine.
It appears that the Mirage 2000 "training" may indeed be a mirage. FWIW I think that is good. I do not think Mirage 2000s would fare well in Ukraine. That said, I think it is clear that for Ukraine to "win" this war, they are going to need a better air force. The US is mucking around with training two aviators to see how it would all go. Of course, had they started doing that in May of last year, we would have such aviators available now and the decision to send F-16s could be made (or denied) knowing the effect would be immediate. I don't see how we can be sure doing this a year from now will be possible. By then, Ukraine might not exist. If we have to do it to succeed, which I think is clearly the case, do it NOW!
This article provides confirmation that the HARM missiles operating from the Ukrainian aircraft are very limited. It is indeed "pre-programmed" mode only. Better than nothing, but not much. The comments also confirm that the "upgrades" to the MIGs by Poland and Slovakia do not include any additional weapons capability. The improved communications and IFF, while essential to NATO operations, does absolutely nothing for use by Ukraine.
It appears that the Mirage 2000 "training" may indeed be a mirage. FWIW I think that is good. I do not think Mirage 2000s would fare well in Ukraine. That said, I think it is clear that for Ukraine to "win" this war, they are going to need a better air force. The US is mucking around with training two aviators to see how it would all go. Of course, had they started doing that in May of last year, we would have such aviators available now and the decision to send F-16s could be made (or denied) knowing the effect would be immediate. I don't see how we can be sure doing this a year from now will be possible. By then, Ukraine might not exist. If we have to do it to succeed, which I think is clearly the case, do it NOW!
https://www.yahoo.com/news/even-possible...00142.html
This article provides confirmation that the HARM missiles operating from the Ukrainian aircraft are very limited. It is indeed "pre-programmed" mode only. Better than nothing, but not much. The comments also confirm that the "upgrades" to the MIGs by Poland and Slovakia do not include any additional weapons capability. The improved communications and IFF, while essential to NATO operations, does absolutely nothing for use by Ukraine.
It appears that the Mirage 2000 "training" may indeed be a mirage. FWIW I think that is good. I do not think Mirage 2000s would fare well in Ukraine. That said, I think it is clear that for Ukraine to "win" this war, they are going to need a better air force. The US is mucking around with training two aviators to see how it would all go. Of course, had they started doing that in May of last year, we would have such aviators available now and the decision to send F-16s could be made (or denied) knowing the effect would be immediate. I don't see how we can be sure doing this a year from now will be possible. By then, Ukraine might not exist. If we have to do it to succeed, which I think is clearly the case, do it NOW!
This article provides confirmation that the HARM missiles operating from the Ukrainian aircraft are very limited. It is indeed "pre-programmed" mode only. Better than nothing, but not much. The comments also confirm that the "upgrades" to the MIGs by Poland and Slovakia do not include any additional weapons capability. The improved communications and IFF, while essential to NATO operations, does absolutely nothing for use by Ukraine.
It appears that the Mirage 2000 "training" may indeed be a mirage. FWIW I think that is good. I do not think Mirage 2000s would fare well in Ukraine. That said, I think it is clear that for Ukraine to "win" this war, they are going to need a better air force. The US is mucking around with training two aviators to see how it would all go. Of course, had they started doing that in May of last year, we would have such aviators available now and the decision to send F-16s could be made (or denied) knowing the effect would be immediate. I don't see how we can be sure doing this a year from now will be possible. By then, Ukraine might not exist. If we have to do it to succeed, which I think is clearly the case, do it NOW!
03-23-2023, 09:47 PM
Couple of bits from the WSJ (sorry, might be behind a paywall, as I used up all my free links):
https://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-to-send-...jem10point
Relevant because if Ukraine is chewing through 90,000 rounds a month, the shells would allow Ukraine to continue the current pace of shelling. The question is whether the EU can produce that many.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-year-into..._permalink
It's possible that even as Russia is running into problems procuring weapons, Ukraine is running into problems mobilizing troops. This about sums it up:
BC
https://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-to-send-...jem10point
Quote:BERLIN—European Union member states backed a plan to send one million artillery shells to Ukraine over the next year as part of an arms-purchase package valued at more than $2 billion, the latest move by Western countries to improve Ukraine’s access to heavy ammunition.
Relevant because if Ukraine is chewing through 90,000 rounds a month, the shells would allow Ukraine to continue the current pace of shelling. The question is whether the EU can produce that many.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-year-into..._permalink
It's possible that even as Russia is running into problems procuring weapons, Ukraine is running into problems mobilizing troops. This about sums it up:
Quote:But while polls show that support for the defense effort remains high, the stock of willing volunteers now appears to be dwindling. Ukraine’s population is less than one-third the size of Russia’s, not accounting for the exodus of millions since the war began, and the kind of coercion used in Russia’s authoritarian system isn’t an option, Kyiv says.
BC
Couple of bits from the WSJ (sorry, might be behind a paywall, as I used up all my free links):
https://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-to-send-...jem10point
Relevant because if Ukraine is chewing through 90,000 rounds a month, the shells would allow Ukraine to continue the current pace of shelling. The question is whether the EU can produce that many.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-year-into..._permalink
It's possible that even as Russia is running into problems procuring weapons, Ukraine is running into problems mobilizing troops. This about sums it up:
BC
https://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-to-send-...jem10point
Quote:BERLIN—European Union member states backed a plan to send one million artillery shells to Ukraine over the next year as part of an arms-purchase package valued at more than $2 billion, the latest move by Western countries to improve Ukraine’s access to heavy ammunition.
Relevant because if Ukraine is chewing through 90,000 rounds a month, the shells would allow Ukraine to continue the current pace of shelling. The question is whether the EU can produce that many.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-year-into..._permalink
It's possible that even as Russia is running into problems procuring weapons, Ukraine is running into problems mobilizing troops. This about sums it up:
Quote:But while polls show that support for the defense effort remains high, the stock of willing volunteers now appears to be dwindling. Ukraine’s population is less than one-third the size of Russia’s, not accounting for the exodus of millions since the war began, and the kind of coercion used in Russia’s authoritarian system isn’t an option, Kyiv says.
BC
(03-23-2023, 09:47 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Couple of bits from the WSJ (sorry, might be behind a paywall, as I used up all my free links):IMO there is little doubt the EU can produce this quantity. The problem has been, and continues to be, that the manufacturers want a long term commitment to justify the investment in ramping up production. Rheinmetall all by itself can probably do it, if their CEO isn't lying. The governments OTOH aren't very willing to give long term commitments or to pay start-up costs. And so nothing happens.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-to-send-...jem10point
Quote:BERLIN—European Union member states backed a plan to send one million artillery shells to Ukraine over the next year as part of an arms-purchase package valued at more than $2 billion, the latest move by Western countries to improve Ukraine’s access to heavy ammunition.
Relevant because if Ukraine is chewing through 90,000 rounds a month, the shells would allow Ukraine to continue the current pace of shelling. The question is whether the EU can produce that many.
Quote:It's possible that even as Russia is running into problems procuring weapons, Ukraine is running into problems mobilizing troops. This about sums it up:
Quote:But while polls show that support for the defense effort remains high, the stock of willing volunteers now appears to be dwindling. Ukraine’s population is less than one-third the size of Russia’s, not accounting for the exodus of millions since the war began, and the kind of coercion used in Russia’s authoritarian system isn’t an option, Kyiv says.
BC
This fact of life has been the overriding backstop that Russia has been counting on. There are more Russians than Ukrainians, and if Russia can translate that to the war, Ukraine loses. Brutal, but it is the Russian way of war. IMO that is why many "Western" observers are of the opinion the Ukraine has to win this year or not at all. That is why the slow decision making/action process in the US/NATO/EU are so dangerous and possibly fatal.
That is also why the "West" has to figure out what to do if this war drags on. More of the same won't cut it. It is too late to be "all in" on Ukraine winning the war this year. The time for that was last July. Obviously we need to do all we can to help in the short term, but we need to start NOW to deal with what happens in 2024. If Ukraine "wins" before then, fine. We need a plan for if they don't and have to continue fighting.
(03-23-2023, 09:47 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Couple of bits from the WSJ (sorry, might be behind a paywall, as I used up all my free links):IMO there is little doubt the EU can produce this quantity. The problem has been, and continues to be, that the manufacturers want a long term commitment to justify the investment in ramping up production. Rheinmetall all by itself can probably do it, if their CEO isn't lying. The governments OTOH aren't very willing to give long term commitments or to pay start-up costs. And so nothing happens.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-to-send-...jem10point
Quote:BERLIN—European Union member states backed a plan to send one million artillery shells to Ukraine over the next year as part of an arms-purchase package valued at more than $2 billion, the latest move by Western countries to improve Ukraine’s access to heavy ammunition.
Relevant because if Ukraine is chewing through 90,000 rounds a month, the shells would allow Ukraine to continue the current pace of shelling. The question is whether the EU can produce that many.
Quote:It's possible that even as Russia is running into problems procuring weapons, Ukraine is running into problems mobilizing troops. This about sums it up:
Quote:But while polls show that support for the defense effort remains high, the stock of willing volunteers now appears to be dwindling. Ukraine’s population is less than one-third the size of Russia’s, not accounting for the exodus of millions since the war began, and the kind of coercion used in Russia’s authoritarian system isn’t an option, Kyiv says.
BC
This fact of life has been the overriding backstop that Russia has been counting on. There are more Russians than Ukrainians, and if Russia can translate that to the war, Ukraine loses. Brutal, but it is the Russian way of war. IMO that is why many "Western" observers are of the opinion the Ukraine has to win this year or not at all. That is why the slow decision making/action process in the US/NATO/EU are so dangerous and possibly fatal.
That is also why the "West" has to figure out what to do if this war drags on. More of the same won't cut it. It is too late to be "all in" on Ukraine winning the war this year. The time for that was last July. Obviously we need to do all we can to help in the short term, but we need to start NOW to deal with what happens in 2024. If Ukraine "wins" before then, fine. We need a plan for if they don't and have to continue fighting.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »