The_MonkeyKing
-
Posts
1,765 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by The_MonkeyKing
-
-
7 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:
Good thread putting some context into the Leopard saga:
To me sound like he filling all the unknowns with his own oppinions. I could just as well fill those unknowns but with inverted conclusions.
Seems to be just a random dude with 500 followers.
-
1 hour ago, Huba said:
Reportedly the French parliament is at this very moment debating sending Leclercs to Ukraine - not if they should do it, but how to solve the logistical challenges. @Taranis care to comment/ confirm that?
Well, maybe it is not such a big deal to have different equipment as long as they are at least in their own brigades? (in war time)
Clearly if this would be a major issue we would see that reflected in the aid decisions?
-
At least this Leopard/MBT crysis is giving a smoke screen for the GLSDB, that is a system that matters much, much more in the sort and medium term.
-
There is going to be a series standoff with these Leopards and the H-hour is tomorrow in Rammstein meeting. Poland PM hinting that we will do what has to be done, no matter the German export permissions.
Germany painted itself to a corner with the US M1 Abrams demand. I think there was absolute no plans for doing this anytime soon, for multiple good reasons. Only compromise I can think of is US making a sale of M1 Abrams with a far off delivery date.
EDIT: new plot twist:
Cannot make this **** up
-
6 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
So if I am reading this right, “Let’s make Ukraine a dumping ground for a bunch of equipment we do not want and can no longer support”? So how is Ukraine going to support them if the UK does not think they can?
Yes, dumping ground for equipment that was created for the job that they would be doing in Ukraine. Sounds good to me. Of course planning and coordination(and generally using sense) is needed and has been lacking in the past (example lets not give 4 different types of western MBT, optimally just one maybe two).
Ukrainians clearly want them and think they need them.
Brittish can support this equipment but don't want to because it is not optimal for them. Not that they are some sort of "toxic waste".
-
2 minutes ago, Lethaface said:
Great argumentation.
It is true. Such a small matter that has many many solutions. In no way is argument for not sending the tanks, it is a line to add to the expense calculation.
That problem can be solved with money, equipment renting, shared exercises and maybe Britain wants to downsize its armored force significant now that the threat it was created for practically disappeared and is not coming back in anyway same scale, NATO allies can compensate and Britain role could shift to air and navy even more....
That is what I came up with in couple of minutes. I am sure the whole British MoD can solve this and put a price on the solution.
-
2 minutes ago, Lethaface said:
Although repeating myself
What about the current tankers & mechanics? One anecdote is my country, we got rid of our tanks but then somebody realized we would also lose all knowledge & experience of the tank arm. So we leased back a battalion of the same tanks from Germany. Now it's not exactly the same case, but there is a similarity: trained personnel.
Now if UK could make a decision overnight and join a multinational program and have the training commence within a couple of months: that's one thing. If such a program would take a couple of years, there's probably not many tankers left in service by the time that they're ready to start.Moot point
-
2 minutes ago, Splinty said:
The difficulty with Ukraine getting Abrams lies in the engine. Ukraine certainly can relatively easily incorporate armor with diesel engines fairly quickly. Learning to operate and support turbine engines is a whole different animal. Sending an Abrams back to Poland for repairs isn't really feasible for mobile warfare.
Ukrainians are operating old(and less old) soviet T-80s with turbines. As one person knowledgeable of the subject stated the Abrams turbine will be "easy mode" compared to these.
-
One of the most brilliant interviews(in term me learning new stuff) of the war:
former head of RAF Intelligence Edward Stringer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNepMICxRJMTo raise the best part: timestamp link https://youtu.be/SNepMICxRJM?t=2566
"Is it time to gift the entire British tank fleet to UKR?" (includes the whole mech force)- TLDR or TLDW: Absolutely yes. One of the "best deals" in security strategy in a long while.
- Strategically thinking MoDs exists to protect from acute threat to our way of live in the transatlantic area. The threat has revealed itself clearly, we do not have to wait on the goal line for it to come to us. We need to remove that threat and that threat will not come back in years. (combine this to the fact RUS is using up the super power heritage that is never coming back)
- British have old legacy equipment that was created for this job. We already saw the announcements of AS90 that he takes to mean that "We have now pretty much decided to get rid of those".
-
The counter sending the tanks is: "We have NATO commitments and need to defend ourselves and always be ready". He says that is what he would call "fallacy: No, sorry you cannot take that, it is the last one and somebody might want that." The task it was bought originally for is now, why would we need to keep it?
Lets look who would really worry about giving the tanks?
1. NATO: Stoltenberg is arguing for more aid and has not raided such concerns
2. What countries would be most worried about Brits losing their mech force? Those are the ones on the frontlines (Estonia, Poland...) and they are to most enthusiastic for these transfer for Ukraine. If they are saying this, we should be listening. - This is an opportunity for Britain to get rid of (and replace) its indigenous, no longer produced or sold tank fleets. Time to join multinational programs?
-
Hey Germans here
How is this dude in terms of Russia and Ukraine?
-
Have we seen any PT-91 footage from Ukraine? Those would go well together with the new IFVs.
-
11 minutes ago, Huba said:
Won't, not can't. And it's the same with basically all European countries. There's cost, and there are some security risks, though as members of NATO we really shouldn't worry about that too much. Finland and Sweden are a special case, but the intermediate treaty with US and UK should cover you until Sultan is appeased enough. I'm repeating it since April - it is only the lack of political will that is holding us back, and Ukrainians pare paying for it with their blood.
Indeed, and even much the costs and risks can be argued away quite effectively.
- Security risk have lowered (also in part permanently) now that Russia is using up its military heritage of the soviet superpower.
- Much of the equipment sounds expensive but it is in most cases sunk cost to equipment that would have to be replaced or modernized anyway.
- Aid given further lowers Russian capacity and so the threat environment
- The shorter the war the less expensive it is. Now only balancing the UKR budget is taking at least billion a month.I think the only argument that is too elusive to argue away is "the escalation" fear. Good thing is that west is starting to get over that fear. Russian capacity to expand the war is diminishing by the day, RUS red lines have been crossed 10 times too many, only one left is the nuclear war fear that is also losing its fear factor.
-
summary of the Finnish situation with the Leopards: https://corporalfrisk.com/2023/01/15/free-the-leopards/
some picks:
Because Finland “can’t send many tanks“. And here is where I call a foul. Finland can send a significant number of tanks, but it would be expensive and we would take a national security risk.The short version is that we could send all Leopard 2A4, which would mean the tank part of an under-strength armoured brigade.
The Leopard 2A4-force was slated for a mid-life upgrade already a decade ago, but that was eventually scrapped due to cost and the opportunity to buy second-hand 2A6NL from the Netherlands at throwaway cost. The word then was that they would replace the 2A4 which we couldn’t afford to upgrade, but as it turns out the Finnish Defence Forces decided to instead double the armoured force.
Here we run into a particular quirk of the Finnish Defence Forces: The Army doesn’t like to talk. This isn’t just restricted to tanks, but in general they don’t discuss their wartime formations, and as such they don’t talk about their plans for the future as that would lead to people getting ideas about the current situation.
If we send the Leopard 2A4s somewhere else, they would obviously need to be replaced, and for once we have something approaching a reasonable cost-estimate. The Norwegian project to acquire new tanks sport a budget of approximately 1.8 billion Euros (19.3 Bn NOK) for 72 new tanks.
So why would Finland send tanks to Ukraine? Why can’t anyone else do so? The whole point was that the Leopard 2 is in widespread use, right?
Scratch the countries in Asia and South America, because so far the Ukraine aid has been a decidedly North American and European affair. Then you can remove Greece and Turkey, since neither will part with any armour before it literally is falling into pieces. This leaves Norway, Spain, Poland, Canada, and Finland.
The counter-argument is obviously that we aren’t a NATO-member (yet), which makes things tricky. I agree on that, and that is indeed the key question which only the top-diplomats can currently answer – how safe does the current status as applicants make us feel? How much of a risk would we take by halving our tank force for half a decade?
As mentioned, the Leopard 2A4 are by now approaching a decade since the planned MLU was cancelled, meaning that they will need either a serious upgrade or a replacement within the next five to ten years in either case. As such, the option of shipping them off to secure Finnish interests in another country is not as outrageously expensive
As such, it’s not that Finland can’t deliver a serious number of tanks to Ukraine – it’s that we aren’t prepared to pay the costs and take the risks such a decision would include. And I for one does not know for certain if that is the correct decision or not.
-
6 minutes ago, Splinty said:
This picture is why I don't think integrating maintenance and logistical support for Bradleys will be too big of a problem. That M270 uses the exact same engine, transmission and suspension as the Bradley. Ukraine already has some experience in operating and maintaining at least the chassis and drivetrain.
One big challenge with IFV and especially tank maintenance is that they get hit a lot. Also broken in million other fun ways. Probably the most. For artillery systems that is way less common.
Lots of repairs and often and a lot of it is done in the field with tanks to speed things up and up the force availability.
Not saying it cannot be done. Definitely can be, but this is one reason why a simpler tank often has more challenges in supply chain than the more complex artillery systems.
-
4 minutes ago, Fernando said:
The Spanish problem is Morocco.
1. Spain has two cities on the north African coast (Ceuta and Melilla) and several islands and islets (Perejil, Chafarinas Islands, Alborán island, Peñón de Vélez and Peñón de Alhucemas) off the north African coast. They have been Spanish for centuries, but Morocco claims they should be Moroccan. Last, but not least, they also claims the whole continental platform up to the Canary Islands.2. We already had a short war in Ifni in 1957 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ifni_War ), problems in the Spanish Sahara in 1975, an incident over Perejil Island in 2002 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perejil_Island ), the border incidents in may 2021 ( https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incidente_fronterizo_entre_España_y_Marruecos_de_2021) and so on. Morrocco has NEVER been a trusting friend nor an ally.
2. Ceuta has some land protecting it, but the only way to defend Melilla is assaulting the macizo del Gurugú (Gourougou Massif) and the high ground close to the city. MBT could not asssault the Gurugú, but are nice support weapons for any infantry assaulting all the high ground around Melilla.
3. Spain has usually neglected their armed forces, but has always tried to keep a clear superiority over Morocco. It means having a good air force (Ejército del Aire), able to quickly gain air superiority over Ceuta, Melilla and the Canary Islands, a navy strong enough to be able clear the sea from Moroccan ships and land some forces on the Moroccan coast, and keeping army forces strong enough to make some limited offensive operations in that area.
BTW, my grandfather on my father side fought in Morocco in the 20's, while my better half's father fought in Ifni en 1957. In Spain, most people realize that Morocco has been our enemy more often than not.
OTOH most of the Leopard 2A4 are in a pity state, because they were an stopgap measure until the Leopard 2E ( the Spanish version of the Leopard 2A6) were available. The 2A4 have been in storage since the Leopard 2E were received. They could be send to Ukraine after being refurbished.Interesting
. With distance knowledge indeed lessens, I never thought about Spains defense policy and it actually pointing south.
We fins have a saying: "Finnish security policy is threefold: Russia, Russia, Russia"
I am only thinking of 2A5 and better for UKR. Look out, Finns are after your 2E tanks for UKR!
-
54 minutes ago, Boche said:
Valid question. Which is why I dont know why we have so many. The main reason would be a land war with Morroco or deployment to eastern europe vs the Russians. We are already enoyings spains first deployment of Leo2Es in Latvia but just in platoon strength. Wether or not that will be increased or decreased in the future I dont know.
Vs Morroco its debatable wether they would even see combat before "its over". A number of Leo2a4s are stationed in Ceuta and Melilla. Depends on the strategy we decide to employ.
Financial AND poltiical. Defense is a tabboo subject in Spain. Any talk of defense spending creates ripples politicians are not willing to create. With the war now there has been some leeway in justifying some increases but...still. There SECOND main party in the goverment coalition heavily lobied AGAINST sending ANYTHING to Ukraine. Still the Main question is how many of those Leo2s are operational. If you are going to ask for half our fleet....yeah I doubt we can give that. I would love for that to be the case though.
Thank you for the Spain insight. I somehow always thought Spain as pretty militarist and ready to go with the Ukraine support.
Never thought it would have been a taboo of any sort.
-
1 minute ago, danfrodo said:
So Splinty, what do you think of bradleys for UKR? And remember option B is old soviet APCs, M113s, MRAPs or HUMMVs. Is it realistic to supply & maintain these in UKR once crews & infantry are trained to use them?
Me commenting as a Finn, we have experience in transitioning from BMP equipment to CV9030 and from T-72 to Leopard 2. Generally everything from operation to maintenance got easier to do with these modern systems than the soviet ones. Example old DOS based computer systems are pretty hard to use compared to modern ones, also switching parts extra is pretty much plug and play.
This is a point our trainers and officers brought up very often in form of recollecting "the old times".
-
Koffman:
I find the tank discussion somewhat talismanic, but agree that it represents an important political decision point on whether to take the better kit from current fleets to support UA, as opposed to relying on older equipment in storage. 1/
That said, IFVs are probably more important in what they offer UA overall. ADS, arty, barrels, and ammunition, remain the more significant issues. Tanks are often being used in an indirect fire role, though that could be particularly characteristic of fighting over the winter. 2/
I've been very much on 'team tank' in terms of their utility, and don't subscribe to the recurring post-1973 claims about tanks being obsolete, etc. That said, this war raises two distinct sets of questions: are tanks being used effectively & has maneuver warfare been viable? 3/
Worth raising this to manage expectations on what impact X or Y system will have. It is fair to say that we've not seen much combined arms in this conflict, and attrition has governed this war much more than maneuver. The latter has been possible where it was relatively easy. 4/
Increasingly I see what I think is the right conversation to be had about this being a longer war, and what it will take to sustain it medium-long term. It's already too late for this to be a short war. Winter 2023 is a time for important decision points on the way forward. 5/
From the article:
The upshot is that Ukraine’s international partners are approaching a hard fork in the road. For months, they have gifted equipment they have held in storage. Although these donations have been expressed in dollar terms, few of them have incurred heavy financial costs to donors. As donations begin to push into critical fleets and stockpiles, however, Ukraine’s partners face the need to invest in regenerating their capabilities as well as supporting Ukraine. In a challenging financial environment, they have tried to defer this decision. But if they want a Ukrainian victory, then they can defer it no longer. To defer investment is to offer Russia an opportunity to protract the war.
Jack Watling is a senior research fellow for land warfare at the Royal United Services Institute
-
53 minutes ago, Boche said:
Well I would disagree. Taking away Eastern Europe, who now has seen their main threat lose their military in Ukraine, and Greece, We are the last country in Europe bordering a hostile neighbour. We have a history of scuffles with them and I do believe that eventually its gonna go hot in someway.
But anyway Its no secret (I think) that Spain has suffered from the german syndrome of neglecting its military. We may have a big fleet of Leos (for some reason) but id bet their readiness level isnt that great. In the summer the minster of defense stated that we would send any to Ukraine due to ther "pitiful state". Then again this could be her just using that as a political excuse but I wouldnt be suprised. Ive seen worse during the 10 years ive been working with the Spanish Armed Forces. Rumorology sort of confirms it- Im sure we could send some number, but not as many as we could if the fleet was operational without neglecting our own needs.
I wonder what exactly are the Spanish needs for MBTs? At least right now in the coming couple of years. Here in Finland we are debating if UKR would need ours more than we. Poland already decided to send more than half of its tanks over the year and is now eyeing their Leo fleet for UKR.
The question must be financial in nature in there. I hope some sort of Leopard pool funding will be created. I see no reason for Spain not giving at least half of its operational fleet for fair compensation.
-
15 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
I think may work for helicopters but the problem with a minimalist approach to amour logistical support stretching back to Poland is that you are going to need 2-3 times the number of tanks to keep what you want in the field. A tank with a relatively minor issue, say in the FCS, will need to be pulled all the way back to Poland - and out of battle. While a more forward logistics support concept sees the tech go to the tank and simply switch out the parts. In western nations this is up to entire power packs, the aim is to keep the tank forward near battle for as long as possible.
This will mean if you want 100 tanks in battle, you can count on 2/3rds either on their way back or forward for maintenance and repairs. And then add logistical vulnerability of having a LOC extending well over 1000kms. This will mean rail/heavy haul unless you want to burn out your tanks driving them.
I gotta be honest, I am not sure why Russia can have contractors doing assaults, while the west is shy about having them run maint depots back a dozen kms.
Yeah, MBTs get hit probably the most on the battlefield (and live to be repaired). This creates a need for constant repairs.
-
1 minute ago, Huba said:
The same principle applies even to the USA, at least in certain crucial categories like artillery and GMLRS, though they have much more depth to draw from.
Poland went that way to a significant distance, and will probably go further still, giving out more than half of our mechanized forces or more, with perspective of making up for the diminished numbers only in 2026. In the meantime, NATO allies provide security by stationing their forces here. In case of Finland it would be a bit more tricky, as NATO accession is still not done. As for other EU countries, the problem seems to be that they don't see the crisis as that existential and prefer to "play it safe" by not allowing a capability gap. I really hope that the upcoming Ramstein will change things, as reasonably the only source of considerable number of modern AFVs and other crucial equipment in Europe are the inventories of active units, there's no way around that.Glad Poland has done as it has.
I am guessing now that the conversation is moving from "we cannot escalate" to "we cannot afford to give" the resistance is going to have to start breaking easier. The arguments are so much more concrete here than the elusive "escalation" risks.
Actually president of Finland stated exactly that Finland's support is limited by the combination of being outside NATO and having the second longest border with Russia in Europe. I suspect the stance will change with the NATO membership.
EU leading countries are Germany, France and Italy. Sadly I think we are lucky to have Germany leading out of that trio....
-
28 minutes ago, Butschi said:
This is precisely what I said on the previous page, right? Generally, don't believe a word of what BILD writes. This time they are right, though.
Which is... difficult as I said. Also, "have to" is technically wrong because so far Germany did not promise to deliver any. We'll see.
Reminds me of argument gaining traction fast in Finland.
Being unwilling to weaken our own defense is in direct conflict with helping Ukraine to victory.
Even every ammunition order is very likely to reduce availability for Ukraine. Investments have to be managed carefully not the overlap with the Ukrainian defense needs(example F-35 is very safe investment but buying 155m ammo on quick order is detrimental).
If we are unwilling to weaken our own defense or want to strengthen it, those resources are definitely not going to Ukraine. And Europe has extreme weak stockpile and industry base for these.
-
Rheinmetall made statement that GER industry won't be able to supply any MBTs this year because hundreds of millions retrofit investments that have not been made yet. (Rheinmetall cannot make such investments without orders)
I remember Rheinmetall bringing this up last summer...
I guess because procrastination on this for so long GER tanks are going to have to come out of Bundeswehr inventory.
-
4 minutes ago, Butschi said:
Rheinmetall has just announced that refurbishment will take until 2024. They have 22 Leopard 2s.
I doubt the Bundeswehr will want (or can afford...) to give away a significant number of theirs. I guess the rest is with KMW?
Bundeswehr cannot afford because? I wonder how Poland could have afford to send hundreds and hundreds of tanks and invest in hundreds and hundreds of new ones.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
It is not bs. You just really have to get to the weeds to see the Leo is the better option. Of course other options can be made to work if Leo doesn't work out