db_zero

Informative video. Expect to see more and more coming out. One part I don’t agree with is the contention that they can ramp up production easily. As mentioned above there is a microchip issue. Car production was delayed and manufactures were shipped cars with old style instruments that didn’t require microchips due to the shortage. Now with Covid ramping back up the possibility of more disruption to the production and supply chain is possible. Neon gas used in lasers to cut silicon wafers is also in danger of becoming scarce. Taiwan produces the vast majority of microchips-a reason why the US would contest any attempt of China to take the island. Recently ground was broken in Arizona for a new microchip factory but it will be a while before it’s in operation. All these smart weapons need microchips as well as other exotic materials. another is tank dead video.

Been told the covering over the turbine engine is perfect for grilling steaks. I was a bit surprised when I saw an M1 at a fairly close distance and for some reason I expected it to be much larger. I only really know about the M1 from playing steel beasts and I was surprised you can burn out the laser- at least that’s the way it’s modeled. I also find the Leopard2 kinda weird the way the gun elevates after firing iirc. The T-72s are sorta of challenge to get the hang of using the main gun…

President Biden is now calling for regime change in Russia: https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-26-22/h_7dbce41e65428047cd28fdb679a43116

A couple of days ago it was reported that Zekinsky was asking for 500 Javelins and 500 Stingers a day from the US and that caused some push back. The distribution of AT and AA missiles to units is far beyond what would be considered normal in most armies-at lease from what I've seen from TOEs published, and this isn't counting other items like AT4s, Panzerfausts and other non guided munitions. Its going to be interesting to see what the ratio of missiles fired to hits is once studies are done. Besides tanks, AFV and trucks, it will also be interesting to see if they've been firing lots of Javelins at static targets like buildings. I wouldn't be surprised if Pentagon officials are becoming concerned about running down the stock of Javelins and Stingers in the US military stockpiles. I certainly would be as there is a global microchip shortage and the last thing you need is trying to ramp up production of weapons that use microchips when there is an existing shortage taking place. Even “dumb” weapons like the AT4 has variants where the user can select target type and if it’s being fired inside a building and I would bet it uses microchips. In addition to microchips, neon a gas used in the production of wafers is being looked at with concern as Ukraine is a producer of neon and it’s out of commission. Going to have to keep track of the microchip market. If you have electronics on your wishlist you may have to be prepared to pay up. The stockpiles of weapons will probably need to be replaced and with countries ramping up defense spending the already stretched demand for microchips may get even worse.

Does it have any meaning? A quote from a popular movie or name of some rock band?

Looks like this tank crew has taken up the long-standing tradition of adding personal touches to their mount…looks like a slogan painted on the fume extractor. Don’t know what it says.

I’ve heard mention that ground that has been flooded plays into the equation but I don’t know if that is confirmed or true.

Reading initial reports about the Ukrainian counterattacks and speculation that 10,000 Russian troops may be cut off around Kyiv. Another report suggest just a major retreat. Some people on social media are speculating there may be a mass surrender in a week. If this does turn out to be accurate we may be looking at a mini Stalingrad. It would be a huge blow to Russia. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-has-launched-counteroffensives-reportedly-surrounding-10000-russian-troops/ar-AAVsUwC

I don’t agree. Stalin appointed what amounted to Theater commanders. You just have to have the proper controls in place. Ask yourself this. Had Russian ran the operation properly with a good and efficient command structure the results could very well be different, success would have come quickly and the discussion would likely be different. People might very well be saying the Russians have a dangerous armored force and the West needs more tanks…

Just flipped on the news and it’s reported the Ukrainians now have more tanks and IFVs then the Russians do in Ukraine as they have captured and are re-using abandoned Russian tanks.

Much of the focus is on the tactical stuff. When the US, NATO or Western powers conduct large military operation there is a Theater Commander or some sort of equivalent who is in direct charge. Many commented including those with past military experience and had contacts that they could not name the Russian Theater Commander. What they saw was 3 separate areas of operations doing their own thing and competing for scarce supplies and resources. Neither were coordinating with the Air Force which seemed to be off doing it own thing. A Western army with a Theater commander would be coordinating all 3 armies as well as coordinating with air operations. He would also be coordinating supplies as well as higher level assets like artillery, EW assets, ADA, strategic recon-both air and ground and naval forces that may be taking place as well as space and other assets. The goal would be to reinforce success and insure synchronization and synergy between land, air and sea as well as between all fronts. The Russians are doing none of the above, fighting as a rabble. So really can any real lessons regarding whether the tank is dead, the drone is omnipotent and the future lies with UVGs that aren't even in service be drawn?

I said much, not all and also mentioned there is some armor and that some armor includes M1s and Korean K1 and K1A tanks but overall its not flat rolling tank country like Ukraine or parts of Europe. Those T-34s could only operate in parts of the country. But in the end your point is well taken and there are currently a pretty large number of tanks in Korea and the infrastructure is more advanced than it was in 1950.

1973 Yom Kippur War. ATGMs and SAMs become the sexy new war toys that fascinated the world. Israel sufferers heavy tank losses and the aircraft loss rate to SA-6, SA-3, SA-2 SA-7 and ZSU-23s reaches alarming rates. Under pressure the US decided to resupply Israel with tanks, jets, ECM pods, ARMs and smart bombs. Russia makes counter moves and complains. Nixon in a show of force raised the DEFCON level. World holds its breath waiting to see if WW3 will take place. Eventually a cease fire is declared and the war ends. In the years that followed a raging debate takes place. Is the tank dead? Why spend millions on expensive jets and expensive and valuable pilots when SAMs and mobile AA guided by radar can easily shoot them down? The debate goes on and on... Then in the early 80s Israel moves into Lebanon. In a stunning strike the IAF wipes the Syrian SAMs and ADA system off the face of the earth. Then Israeli armored formations move into action. People notice the Israeli tanks have weird blocks mounted all over the tanks and are bristling with machine guns. Supported by ample indirect fire and using proper combined arms tactics-something neglected in the early phases in the 1973 war, the Israelis advance. Soon the war resorts to the lowest common denominator-tanks, infantry and artillery slogging it out. Tanks aren't going anywhere. The longbow at Agincourt put armored knights on notice and gunpowder eventually killed off the mounted warrior, but it took hundreds of years and in that time warriors mounted on horseback was used extensively. There are already numerous counter measures to drones and guided missile like the Javelin. The Russians don't have them. Even if they did, judging from their performance they wouldn't have properly applied them and probably don't have the skilled personnel in sufficient numbers to use some of the more exotic stuff that requires a high degree of technical skills. Unmanned vehicles to replace tanks are way, way off in the future. Not even sure what the militaries attitude on this is. They would have to believe its reliable and can be maintained and the soldiers themselves will have to trust it. I would be careful about falling in love with drones. Like the SAMs systems of the past they can be countered and they have weak points. The Russians are just not capable of pinpointing and targeting them in a timely manner.

Wow. CNN reports Ukraine is asking for 500 Javelin’s and 500 Stingers a day from the US. Do we even have that many in stock? also looks like we’re sending chem/bio detection gear over too-ABC News

Just watch all these people saying UVGs and drones will replace MBTs. In a year or 2 Poland will have 250 M1s. Germany will have more MBTs. I’m not saying there’s going to be thousands of MBTs rolling off the production lines. These days production runs are smaller but the weapons are far more effective. You don’t crank out thousands of P-51 or F-4s like you used to and tanks are no different… In the meantime where’s this UVG so many are predicting? It takes the Pentagon years to get a prototype out and years more of testing. I’ve seen all sorts of concepts and some small ones are probably in use but something along the lines that will replace the MBT? That’s years away and will it be completely autonomous or remote controlled? UAVs we’re extensively used in the Viet-Nam war and people were then lobbying for it to be used in more ways and visionaries were predicting pilots would become obsolete. Now 48 years later piloted aircraft are still in use and a lot of wars and conflicts fought using the “outdated concept” of manned aircraft. IMO we’re at least 20 years maybe longer away from any sort of limited use of a unmanned replacement for the MBT and between now and then a lot of fighting.

I think with NATO rearming, especially Germany you're going to see even more tanks. Poland is going to get 250 M1's and Germany is going to crank up its tanks formations. Don't be surprised if other nations also buy tanks. Tanks are perfect for mobile defense and provide excellent protection from artillery, NBC and are highly mobile. Sure infantry ATGMs will have to be taken into account, remember though NATO is going to be on the defense. They can keep the tanks in the rear, use drones and indirect fire to break up attack formations, then launch devastating counter attacks with tanks in areas of their choosing that have been properly reconnoitered and prepped with artillery and other means. Infantry with ATGMs is not well suited for this sort of tasks and drones can't occupy territory. Aircraft and helicopters can't occupy territory either. Infantry can only carry so many missiles and its a one shot weapon. The cannon on a tank can fire on the move accurately and can spit out a lot of firepower in rapid succession, plus the MGs on the tank can also pour out a lot of firepower. There is mobility and then there is combat mobility and tanks give both. You just have to be good at using combined arms, conduct proper reconnaissance and operate in a a synergistic way.

It does matter as just naming a country that you’re not realistically going to fight using the weapons in question make no sense. We could just use another NATO country if one wanted to start picking random nations out of a hat… anyway let’s drop it as it’s getting off track.

I tend to agree with this. Even so I’m not sure the decision markers are going to play Russian Roulette when it comes to nukes. I’m going to assume the control restrictions apply to small tactical nukes as well as the big ones. We’re also making the assumption that all nukes are accounted for and under complete control and given what we’ve already seen of the Russian military and it’s efficiency and corruption and incompetence that may be asking too much. Keep in mind too the Defense Minister has “heart problems” and other defense officials have been replaced so just who is in control of the nukes? The fact they are even mentioning this shows desperation and I don’t know if that’s a good or bad thing with a nuclear armed opponent.

Unless this is completely fake… https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/russia-promises-use-nuclear-weapons-26543507

Seriously you really think the US or NATO is going to invade Iran? The geography is worse than Iraq and the population double Iraq.

Looks like Russia has thrown down the gauntlet. Polish troops used as peacekeepers in Ukraine means WW3 and use of nukes whether we like it or not… I suppose they also mean any other NATO peacekeepers too…

Using Iran and invasion isn’t relevant either…

So are we going to start sending shore based SSMs to Ukraine? Norway and other NATO countries have good land based SSMs. I don't know how Putin will react when his ships start getting blown up, especially if its a battle cruiser...

Invading Iran would not be smart period. Any President sending US ground forces to invade would need to get their head examined.

Iran would be an awful place for armor and resupply would be a real headache. The geography looks to be unsuited for armor. Not sure under what circumstances the US would invade Iran and Iran's ability to project beyond its border is limited. Large armor battles are limited to Europe or the Middle East if the situation warranted it, but the Middle East would probably require a long build up period. Korea has some armor, but much of the country is not suited for armor. Taiwan would see little if any US heavy tank formations. Can't see where or why we would fight large battles in Africa and China....hahaha