Maciej Zwolinski

You may call me old and cynical, or just East European (and I am all of these things), but truly there should be no need to look for any more reasons for supporting the Ukraine if  c) applies. The West at a reasonable cost may undermine, hopefully crippple, the West's self-avowed enemy. What's not to like? What's more to think about?
a) and b) are obviously nice to have as arguments to use on the undecided or die-hard moral highlanders , but even if they were not applicable, c) clinches the deal.

Some look little better than the survivors of the WW2 concentration camps, tough.

That's because the role for which the tank was invented- breakthrough of a fixed front - is not the one it excels at. It has been quickly discovered, that breakthrough can be obtained by other means. However, the problem is what next. Once you are out of the enemy reserve trench and want to make ground, it really does not do to slow down to a crawl each time a HMG starts shooting in the vicinity. Serendipitously, the tank has turned out to be the thing that could reliably go forward in such circumstances. It was invulnerable/less vulnerable to the things that kill mobility of soldiers on foot or horseback- HMGs and indirect HE artillery fire, later also aircraft strafing and bombing (particularly deadly against cavalry). And (mines excepted) it could be destroyed only by things it could itself outfight, numbers permitting, and then continue on its merry rampage through the enemy rear. It made the exploitation possible again .
In that sense, it is less important whether we are talking strictly about tanks, IFVs or armoured cars. Functionally, tank had the role of the vehicle which can reasonably well shrug off indirect and machine gun fire,  move forward over lightly contested ground at speeds significantly higher than walking, and overcome moderate enemy resistance by the onboard weapons of itself and others inj its unit before moving again. Now there is no way to be reasonably protected from indirect fire because of the anti tank drones, while their reconnaissance cousins also improve the accuracy of artillery fire to the point that even ordinary HE can obtain direct hits. Also it is questionable if tanks alone can outfight any enemy, since even basic infantry platoons have several moderate-range, high-PK missiles each .
There is no vehicle currently which would fulfill the above described role. During the Kharkiv offensive, Ukrainians were exploiting the breaktrough in pick-ups, on quads and buggies. Not that they were the better vehicles for it it than tanks. But the additional level of safety that the tanks provided was not so much higher to warrant their enormous price tag.

Some look little better than the survivors of the WW2 concentration camps, tough.

Finally someone found a way to make tankettes great again! I see it clearly now: a swarm of robotic tankettes coordinated by a very big and very well armoured robotic brain. Let's call the brain unit E.F.L.H. for the old times' sake (short for "Even Fuller and a Liddle Harder").

That's because the role for which the tank was invented- breakthrough of a fixed front - is not the one it excels at. It has been quickly discovered, that breakthrough can be obtained by other means. However, the problem is what next. Once you are out of the enemy reserve trench and want to make ground, it really does not do to slow down to a crawl each time a HMG starts shooting in the vicinity. Serendipitously, the tank has turned out to be the thing that could reliably go forward in such circumstances. It was invulnerable/less vulnerable to the things that kill mobility of soldiers on foot or horseback- HMGs and indirect HE artillery fire, later also aircraft strafing and bombing (particularly deadly against cavalry). And (mines excepted) it could be destroyed only by things it could itself outfight, numbers permitting, and then continue on its merry rampage through the enemy rear. It made the exploitation possible again .
In that sense, it is less important whether we are talking strictly about tanks, IFVs or armoured cars. Functionally, tank had the role of the vehicle which can reasonably well shrug off indirect and machine gun fire,  move forward over lightly contested ground at speeds significantly higher than walking, and overcome moderate enemy resistance by the onboard weapons of itself and others inj its unit before moving again. Now there is no way to be reasonably protected from indirect fire because of the anti tank drones, while their reconnaissance cousins also improve the accuracy of artillery fire to the point that even ordinary HE can obtain direct hits. Also it is questionable if tanks alone can outfight any enemy, since even basic infantry platoons have several moderate-range, high-PK missiles each .
There is no vehicle currently which would fulfill the above described role. During the Kharkiv offensive, Ukrainians were exploiting the breaktrough in pick-ups, on quads and buggies. Not that they were the better vehicles for it it than tanks. But the additional level of safety that the tanks provided was not so much higher to warrant their enormous price tag.

That's because the role for which the tank was invented- breakthrough of a fixed front - is not the one it excels at. It has been quickly discovered, that breakthrough can be obtained by other means. However, the problem is what next. Once you are out of the enemy reserve trench and want to make ground, it really does not do to slow down to a crawl each time a HMG starts shooting in the vicinity. Serendipitously, the tank has turned out to be the thing that could reliably go forward in such circumstances. It was invulnerable/less vulnerable to the things that kill mobility of soldiers on foot or horseback- HMGs and indirect HE artillery fire, later also aircraft strafing and bombing (particularly deadly against cavalry). And (mines excepted) it could be destroyed only by things it could itself outfight, numbers permitting, and then continue on its merry rampage through the enemy rear. It made the exploitation possible again .
In that sense, it is less important whether we are talking strictly about tanks, IFVs or armoured cars. Functionally, tank had the role of the vehicle which can reasonably well shrug off indirect and machine gun fire,  move forward over lightly contested ground at speeds significantly higher than walking, and overcome moderate enemy resistance by the onboard weapons of itself and others inj its unit before moving again. Now there is no way to be reasonably protected from indirect fire because of the anti tank drones, while their reconnaissance cousins also improve the accuracy of artillery fire to the point that even ordinary HE can obtain direct hits. Also it is questionable if tanks alone can outfight any enemy, since even basic infantry platoons have several moderate-range, high-PK missiles each .
There is no vehicle currently which would fulfill the above described role. During the Kharkiv offensive, Ukrainians were exploiting the breaktrough in pick-ups, on quads and buggies. Not that they were the better vehicles for it it than tanks. But the additional level of safety that the tanks provided was not so much higher to warrant their enormous price tag.

Finally someone found a way to make tankettes great again! I see it clearly now: a swarm of robotic tankettes coordinated by a very big and very well armoured robotic brain. Let's call the brain unit E.F.L.H. for the old times' sake (short for "Even Fuller and a Liddle Harder").

Finally someone found a way to make tankettes great again! I see it clearly now: a swarm of robotic tankettes coordinated by a very big and very well armoured robotic brain. Let's call the brain unit E.F.L.H. for the old times' sake (short for "Even Fuller and a Liddle Harder").

That's because the role for which the tank was invented- breakthrough of a fixed front - is not the one it excels at. It has been quickly discovered, that breakthrough can be obtained by other means. However, the problem is what next. Once you are out of the enemy reserve trench and want to make ground, it really does not do to slow down to a crawl each time a HMG starts shooting in the vicinity. Serendipitously, the tank has turned out to be the thing that could reliably go forward in such circumstances. It was invulnerable/less vulnerable to the things that kill mobility of soldiers on foot or horseback- HMGs and indirect HE artillery fire, later also aircraft strafing and bombing (particularly deadly against cavalry). And (mines excepted) it could be destroyed only by things it could itself outfight, numbers permitting, and then continue on its merry rampage through the enemy rear. It made the exploitation possible again .
In that sense, it is less important whether we are talking strictly about tanks, IFVs or armoured cars. Functionally, tank had the role of the vehicle which can reasonably well shrug off indirect and machine gun fire,  move forward over lightly contested ground at speeds significantly higher than walking, and overcome moderate enemy resistance by the onboard weapons of itself and others inj its unit before moving again. Now there is no way to be reasonably protected from indirect fire because of the anti tank drones, while their reconnaissance cousins also improve the accuracy of artillery fire to the point that even ordinary HE can obtain direct hits. Also it is questionable if tanks alone can outfight any enemy, since even basic infantry platoons have several moderate-range, high-PK missiles each .
There is no vehicle currently which would fulfill the above described role. During the Kharkiv offensive, Ukrainians were exploiting the breaktrough in pick-ups, on quads and buggies. Not that they were the better vehicles for it it than tanks. But the additional level of safety that the tanks provided was not so much higher to warrant their enormous price tag.

That's because the role for which the tank was invented- breakthrough of a fixed front - is not the one it excels at. It has been quickly discovered, that breakthrough can be obtained by other means. However, the problem is what next. Once you are out of the enemy reserve trench and want to make ground, it really does not do to slow down to a crawl each time a HMG starts shooting in the vicinity. Serendipitously, the tank has turned out to be the thing that could reliably go forward in such circumstances. It was invulnerable/less vulnerable to the things that kill mobility of soldiers on foot or horseback- HMGs and indirect HE artillery fire, later also aircraft strafing and bombing (particularly deadly against cavalry). And (mines excepted) it could be destroyed only by things it could itself outfight, numbers permitting, and then continue on its merry rampage through the enemy rear. It made the exploitation possible again .
In that sense, it is less important whether we are talking strictly about tanks, IFVs or armoured cars. Functionally, tank had the role of the vehicle which can reasonably well shrug off indirect and machine gun fire,  move forward over lightly contested ground at speeds significantly higher than walking, and overcome moderate enemy resistance by the onboard weapons of itself and others inj its unit before moving again. Now there is no way to be reasonably protected from indirect fire because of the anti tank drones, while their reconnaissance cousins also improve the accuracy of artillery fire to the point that even ordinary HE can obtain direct hits. Also it is questionable if tanks alone can outfight any enemy, since even basic infantry platoons have several moderate-range, high-PK missiles each .
There is no vehicle currently which would fulfill the above described role. During the Kharkiv offensive, Ukrainians were exploiting the breaktrough in pick-ups, on quads and buggies. Not that they were the better vehicles for it it than tanks. But the additional level of safety that the tanks provided was not so much higher to warrant their enormous price tag.

You may call me old and cynical, or just East European (and I am all of these things), but truly there should be no need to look for any more reasons for supporting the Ukraine if  c) applies. The West at a reasonable cost may undermine, hopefully crippple, the West's self-avowed enemy. What's not to like? What's more to think about?
a) and b) are obviously nice to have as arguments to use on the undecided or die-hard moral highlanders , but even if they were not applicable, c) clinches the deal.

That's waaay off topic, but I can't resist it so I will shoot-and-scoot one reply, and then go into (feigned Mongol-style) withdrawal.
European medieval states were not capable of Empire- toppling campaigns as the Mongols did or wars dragging on for years with WWI casualty levels in Chinese style. However, at other aspects of warfare they were the world leaders. Both their strengths and weaknesses often derived from the peculiarities of the political system prevailing in Europe at the time, feudalism.
1. Fortifications. While individual fortresses in the Eastern Roman Empire or the Islamic caliphates could be formidable and impress the Westerners, there was no other region in the World which would rival the Medieval Europe in the overall level of fortification, quality and quantity of the defensive architecture taken together. Individual feudal lords were expected to build castles, had the means to build castles and built them.
2. Individual Armour. From XI century to XV century it makes rapid progress, usually keeping abreast of the other  parts of the world. In 2 half of XIV century the full plate harness is introduced and no other armour in the world matches it until the discovery of Kevlars and similar materials in the XX century. Again, a feature of feudalism allowing an individual soldier the means to spend the equivalent of several dozen villages with villagers on his personal protection,
3. Gunpowder. Invented in China, adopted in the islamic world and the Great Steppe, it found its home in Europe. The progress in firearms in Europe was the fastest in the World. Connected with 1. and 2  - in the land of fortresses, both stationary and ambulatory ones, the ability to harness the chemical energy to defeat them was much appreciated. 
 

That's waaay off topic, but I can't resist it so I will shoot-and-scoot one reply, and then go into (feigned Mongol-style) withdrawal.
European medieval states were not capable of Empire- toppling campaigns as the Mongols did or wars dragging on for years with WWI casualty levels in Chinese style. However, at other aspects of warfare they were the world leaders. Both their strengths and weaknesses often derived from the peculiarities of the political system prevailing in Europe at the time, feudalism.
1. Fortifications. While individual fortresses in the Eastern Roman Empire or the Islamic caliphates could be formidable and impress the Westerners, there was no other region in the World which would rival the Medieval Europe in the overall level of fortification, quality and quantity of the defensive architecture taken together. Individual feudal lords were expected to build castles, had the means to build castles and built them.
2. Individual Armour. From XI century to XV century it makes rapid progress, usually keeping abreast of the other  parts of the world. In 2 half of XIV century the full plate harness is introduced and no other armour in the world matches it until the discovery of Kevlars and similar materials in the XX century. Again, a feature of feudalism allowing an individual soldier the means to spend the equivalent of several dozen villages with villagers on his personal protection,
3. Gunpowder. Invented in China, adopted in the islamic world and the Great Steppe, it found its home in Europe. The progress in firearms in Europe was the fastest in the World. Connected with 1. and 2  - in the land of fortresses, both stationary and ambulatory ones, the ability to harness the chemical energy to defeat them was much appreciated. 
 

There are several kills attributed to R37. The reports seem fairly reliable, as they occurred in areas without Russian SAM coverage.

That's waaay off topic, but I can't resist it so I will shoot-and-scoot one reply, and then go into (feigned Mongol-style) withdrawal.
European medieval states were not capable of Empire- toppling campaigns as the Mongols did or wars dragging on for years with WWI casualty levels in Chinese style. However, at other aspects of warfare they were the world leaders. Both their strengths and weaknesses often derived from the peculiarities of the political system prevailing in Europe at the time, feudalism.
1. Fortifications. While individual fortresses in the Eastern Roman Empire or the Islamic caliphates could be formidable and impress the Westerners, there was no other region in the World which would rival the Medieval Europe in the overall level of fortification, quality and quantity of the defensive architecture taken together. Individual feudal lords were expected to build castles, had the means to build castles and built them.
2. Individual Armour. From XI century to XV century it makes rapid progress, usually keeping abreast of the other  parts of the world. In 2 half of XIV century the full plate harness is introduced and no other armour in the world matches it until the discovery of Kevlars and similar materials in the XX century. Again, a feature of feudalism allowing an individual soldier the means to spend the equivalent of several dozen villages with villagers on his personal protection,
3. Gunpowder. Invented in China, adopted in the islamic world and the Great Steppe, it found its home in Europe. The progress in firearms in Europe was the fastest in the World. Connected with 1. and 2  - in the land of fortresses, both stationary and ambulatory ones, the ability to harness the chemical energy to defeat them was much appreciated. 
 

You may call me old and cynical, or just East European (and I am all of these things), but truly there should be no need to look for any more reasons for supporting the Ukraine if  c) applies. The West at a reasonable cost may undermine, hopefully crippple, the West's self-avowed enemy. What's not to like? What's more to think about?
a) and b) are obviously nice to have as arguments to use on the undecided or die-hard moral highlanders , but even if they were not applicable, c) clinches the deal.

I do not think that is a possibility.
The problem with Russian glide bombings is that the bombing run ends 50-70 km before the front line, and only the bomb continues to fly from that moment on. Trying to intrecept the bombs is futile, they are a difficult target, relatively cheap and very numerous. However, in order to even try and intercept the bombers, Ukrainian aircraft would have to fly on the front line or even over on the Russian side of it - the range of available AA missiles limits them. Assuming the Ukrainians can degrade RUS GBAD sufficiently to allow this, there is still the issue of RUS air-to-air capability. Russians have much longer range missiles (R37),  as the development of such seems to have been neglected in the west (under the mistaken assumption, that long range AAMs must be by definition lumbering monsters, incapable of shooting down anything but big bombers - either that, or the Western Air Forces' more important concern was that changing their role to drivers of long range missile trucks will deprive them of the "Top Gun" mystique and easy chat up lines). RUS air force is actually optimised for AA. Therefore  I don't think that the Ukrainians will be able to Freie Jagd their F16 over the front  in a way necessary to affect the glide bombings, ever or at least until RUS situations deterioriates overall. I hope I am wrong, of course.
On the other hand, I think that the Ukrainians are trying to do the second best thing, i.e. acquire the capability of making long range glide bombing runs themselves. There was information a couple of days ago abt GBU 39 being integrated with MiGs. The recent evidence of ATACMS attacks on RUS SAM batteries also suggests, that degradation of RUS GBAD is  now a priority for UKR fire planners, so they probably expect UKR aircraft to start flying soon
 

That's waaay off topic, but I can't resist it so I will shoot-and-scoot one reply, and then go into (feigned Mongol-style) withdrawal.
European medieval states were not capable of Empire- toppling campaigns as the Mongols did or wars dragging on for years with WWI casualty levels in Chinese style. However, at other aspects of warfare they were the world leaders. Both their strengths and weaknesses often derived from the peculiarities of the political system prevailing in Europe at the time, feudalism.
1. Fortifications. While individual fortresses in the Eastern Roman Empire or the Islamic caliphates could be formidable and impress the Westerners, there was no other region in the World which would rival the Medieval Europe in the overall level of fortification, quality and quantity of the defensive architecture taken together. Individual feudal lords were expected to build castles, had the means to build castles and built them.
2. Individual Armour. From XI century to XV century it makes rapid progress, usually keeping abreast of the other  parts of the world. In 2 half of XIV century the full plate harness is introduced and no other armour in the world matches it until the discovery of Kevlars and similar materials in the XX century. Again, a feature of feudalism allowing an individual soldier the means to spend the equivalent of several dozen villages with villagers on his personal protection,
3. Gunpowder. Invented in China, adopted in the islamic world and the Great Steppe, it found its home in Europe. The progress in firearms in Europe was the fastest in the World. Connected with 1. and 2  - in the land of fortresses, both stationary and ambulatory ones, the ability to harness the chemical energy to defeat them was much appreciated. 
 

You may call me old and cynical, or just East European (and I am all of these things), but truly there should be no need to look for any more reasons for supporting the Ukraine if  c) applies. The West at a reasonable cost may undermine, hopefully crippple, the West's self-avowed enemy. What's not to like? What's more to think about?
a) and b) are obviously nice to have as arguments to use on the undecided or die-hard moral highlanders , but even if they were not applicable, c) clinches the deal.

I do not think that is a possibility.
The problem with Russian glide bombings is that the bombing run ends 50-70 km before the front line, and only the bomb continues to fly from that moment on. Trying to intrecept the bombs is futile, they are a difficult target, relatively cheap and very numerous. However, in order to even try and intercept the bombers, Ukrainian aircraft would have to fly on the front line or even over on the Russian side of it - the range of available AA missiles limits them. Assuming the Ukrainians can degrade RUS GBAD sufficiently to allow this, there is still the issue of RUS air-to-air capability. Russians have much longer range missiles (R37),  as the development of such seems to have been neglected in the west (under the mistaken assumption, that long range AAMs must be by definition lumbering monsters, incapable of shooting down anything but big bombers - either that, or the Western Air Forces' more important concern was that changing their role to drivers of long range missile trucks will deprive them of the "Top Gun" mystique and easy chat up lines). RUS air force is actually optimised for AA. Therefore  I don't think that the Ukrainians will be able to Freie Jagd their F16 over the front  in a way necessary to affect the glide bombings, ever or at least until RUS situations deterioriates overall. I hope I am wrong, of course.
On the other hand, I think that the Ukrainians are trying to do the second best thing, i.e. acquire the capability of making long range glide bombing runs themselves. There was information a couple of days ago abt GBU 39 being integrated with MiGs. The recent evidence of ATACMS attacks on RUS SAM batteries also suggests, that degradation of RUS GBAD is  now a priority for UKR fire planners, so they probably expect UKR aircraft to start flying soon
 

You may call me old and cynical, or just East European (and I am all of these things), but truly there should be no need to look for any more reasons for supporting the Ukraine if  c) applies. The West at a reasonable cost may undermine, hopefully crippple, the West's self-avowed enemy. What's not to like? What's more to think about?
a) and b) are obviously nice to have as arguments to use on the undecided or die-hard moral highlanders , but even if they were not applicable, c) clinches the deal.

You may call me old and cynical, or just East European (and I am all of these things), but truly there should be no need to look for any more reasons for supporting the Ukraine if  c) applies. The West at a reasonable cost may undermine, hopefully crippple, the West's self-avowed enemy. What's not to like? What's more to think about?
a) and b) are obviously nice to have as arguments to use on the undecided or die-hard moral highlanders , but even if they were not applicable, c) clinches the deal.

This is probably right on the money, but I would put a fair bit of value on breaking up bombing runs. Even if the bombs themselves are cheap, disrupting the currently more or less unimpeded bombing runs would be far more useful to the Ukrainians on the ground. Kills are not likely as you say unless the Ukrainians are able to 'ambush' targets. We have seen some pretty ingenious work from the Ukrainians so far on this front so who knows. 

Simply painting the offending jets with radar would probably be enough, no one is going to stick around to be shot at. I suspect that simply the presence of F-16s in combat will have value for that reason alone. 

I do not think that is a possibility.
The problem with Russian glide bombings is that the bombing run ends 50-70 km before the front line, and only the bomb continues to fly from that moment on. Trying to intrecept the bombs is futile, they are a difficult target, relatively cheap and very numerous. However, in order to even try and intercept the bombers, Ukrainian aircraft would have to fly on the front line or even over on the Russian side of it - the range of available AA missiles limits them. Assuming the Ukrainians can degrade RUS GBAD sufficiently to allow this, there is still the issue of RUS air-to-air capability. Russians have much longer range missiles (R37),  as the development of such seems to have been neglected in the west (under the mistaken assumption, that long range AAMs must be by definition lumbering monsters, incapable of shooting down anything but big bombers - either that, or the Western Air Forces' more important concern was that changing their role to drivers of long range missile trucks will deprive them of the "Top Gun" mystique and easy chat up lines). RUS air force is actually optimised for AA. Therefore  I don't think that the Ukrainians will be able to Freie Jagd their F16 over the front  in a way necessary to affect the glide bombings, ever or at least until RUS situations deterioriates overall. I hope I am wrong, of course.
On the other hand, I think that the Ukrainians are trying to do the second best thing, i.e. acquire the capability of making long range glide bombing runs themselves. There was information a couple of days ago abt GBU 39 being integrated with MiGs. The recent evidence of ATACMS attacks on RUS SAM batteries also suggests, that degradation of RUS GBAD is  now a priority for UKR fire planners, so they probably expect UKR aircraft to start flying soon