The_MonkeyKing

Obsolete how? - Armor? Doesn't matter really, everything there so far has been "one hit one kill" already. - Penetration? Comparable to the current kit of the Ukrainians. So good enough. Leo1 is superiors in many ways to the soviet kit we are seeing on both sides in Ukraine. All the "silent capabilities" of the tank. Sights, fire control, situational awareness, crew comfort. (Well, only the updated leo1 tanks) I would compare the leo1 vs. the kit used in Ukraine by both sides to WWII Panzer III vs heavier allied or soviet tanks. It is not all about the penetration and armor. Many ways like M60's in CMC. Very usable but limited. Abrams and Leo2 would be the best but I am not sure if they can pull of Abrams in any reasonable amount of time and Leo2 are too needed in the west by the west themselves.

Could Leo1 become the main "lend-lease" tank to Ukraine? There are tons and tons of them available in the west. There must be uniformity in the heavy weapons supplied to Ukraine or it will be a logistical circus out there. So my view is M113 and Leo1 should become the main weapons of the Ukrainian military.. Main question here is how does the Ukraine T-64 APFSDS ammo compare to best Leo1 APFSDS ammo available? According to my quick amateur research 3BM42 is the main Ukraine APFSDS ammo at the moment. Penetration similar to best 105mm ammo available. But these both will still struggle with Russian modern armor frontally. Still clearly "good enough". So the tank is clearly good enough, there are lot of them and their logistics available to the west, they are "bad" enough to hand over without losing wests own capabilities.

My question is how far will it go before being stopped? My opinion is it will be stopped at the major cities the latest. Ukraine has land to trade for momentum. According to many analysists this attack is too early. The Russians are not sufficiently prepared. Attack will be lots of feeding units to the front piece meal. Might even be some silly victory day deadline that caused this.

hmm, I wonder is ISW still hitting the mark and over estimating the Russians. Or have they now been "calibrated". haha

Chieftain made a similar case as Military History Visualized. - Nothing else available to replace the capability of the tank. (He also didn't really mention UGVs as an alternative.) - Compares tanks to infantry. Vulnerable yes, but nothing else gets the job done - Very few militaries have come to the conclusion of "No tanks" needed - "protection onion". tank still has the most layers. (notice all the most talked stuff like armor thickness and APS come last) I am still undecided about the UGVs ability to replace tanks. Wing-man and point-man tanks yes, certainly. - UGV still needs maintaining and labor constantly. In MBT this means checking checklists and adding fluids every couple of hours. - UGV "Crew" would still need a protected space to be in. (or the daily maintenance personnel) - Risks of electric warfare

Ship can pretty much be an empty husk and still float. I am sure we will find out when the ship gets spotted on open market satellite photos.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/04/13/statement-by-president-joe-biden-on-call-with-president-zelenskyy-and-additional-security-assistance-to-ukraine/ "This new package of assistance will contain many of the highly effective weapons systems we have already provided and new capabilities tailored to the wider assault we expect Russia to launch in eastern Ukraine. These new capabilities include artillery systems, artillery rounds, and armored personnel carriers. I have also approved the transfer of additional helicopters. In addition, we continue to facilitate the transfer of significant capabilities from our Allies and partners around the world. "

Those would be some nasty scenarios for the Russian players to face. And you though CM:CW Soviet campaign was hard....

Would Ukraine be able to receive HIMARS or similar?

I think it means they were out of yellow and blue. haha

Where is all the French military equipment send to Ukraine? Or is there any? Sending even less than Germany?

Tanks should be in cover by default, only one tank or so observing (this also rotated) or separate OP or drone. More tanks go to observation positions (only gun sight exposed) to acquire and pre-aim when targets are observed for them in their defined killzones. When they acquire a target they quickly go to "hull down" and fire 1-2 shots.

I say their tactics must change. In modern battlefield you cannot have armor sitting turret up for any longer than it takes to fire 1 or 2 rounds (any other time you are in cover, at most with only gunner optic exposed). Also not advised to peek the same spot twice in a row...

I wonder what form these systems will take. I am not aware of UK having or had any Harpoon coastal defense systems. Maybe open market or other countries to acquire the missing parts?

Unconfirmed and unknown. But would be logical, last year Ukraine order 20 or so DANA-M2

Well, that is all the S300 equipment Slovakia has. One battery

well, well

Martti J. Kari is a former intelligence Colonel in the Finnish Defense Forces resent interview in English.

In some sense "correct statement" taken literally but the message is incorrect. EU countries have done great deal more than 1bn.

That is incorrect. EU countries have given a lot more aid than 1bn (1bn is from direct EU budget to military aid). Also count humanitarian aid, financial aid, refugees, individual countries giving military aid, intelligence, resources to Ukraine and military training. This number must be in the tens of bn. And that money would go to some other energy anyways if not Russian. I also agree somewhat with the argument that immediate energy cutoff is not smart. Phase out of 1-3 years is smart. Russian energy income of 1-2 years is not going to decide things and cutoff would be major hinderance to whole European economy, weakening it.

Seems to me like a company getting wiped by ATGM

Air can be very vulnerable when hovering (for example pop-up "battle positions" that are not secure like possibly in this case) or when coming directly for an attack run. Most modern IFV and tanks have anti-aircraft mode in their firing computers. Also Javelins can shoot down hovering helicopters.

Yes, better than nothing but capability downgrade to Ukrainian current in service armor. T-64BV vs T-72B3 works. T-72M1 vs T-72B3 doesn't really work. Of course situation changes when used defensively or generally carefully. For local defense troops ext. T-72M1 is almost not worth it to use in the frontlines because it eats up a tank crew and supply just like a more capable tank.