Centurian52

It hard to judge relative combat performance in an asymmetric war. The ideal tank can be hit by a precision artillery round at 20km, the worst tank can find itself in the right place at the right time and put a round into something vital. The best drone can be knocked out of the sky with a well aimed can of beans, the worst drone can detect and relay back vital information to HQ. It would be a pity to die at the hands of a conscript carrying a Mosin rifle three times his age, but its not out of the realm of possibility.

I'm sorry. Fiscally responsible? While the independence of a democratic country is at stake, war crimes are being committed on a scale not seen since WW2, and we have an opportunity to deliver a massive strategic blow to a long time adversary?
No. We should be talking about spending entire percentages of our GDP to decisively defeat Russia. Not a mere few hundred million dollars. But several hundred billion dollars. No more incrementalism. We should be looking at overmatching the entire Russian GDP in aid to Ukraine. Enough to make it obvious to them that it is economically impossible for them to win, and that their only option is to make peace. That is very doable for us. The Russian GDP is 1.6 trillion. The US GDP is 20 trillion, and the rest of NATO is another 20 trillion. Overmatching the entire Russian GDP would cost the US and her allies ~4% of their respective GDPs. That would be painful, but we can afford to tighten our belts for a year or two to make that happen, and it would be well worthwhile (in WW2 our spending was closer to 40% of GDP). When the war is over we should be looking at spending hundreds of billions more, maybe even a couple trillion, on rebuilding Ukraine with a modern Marshal plan. 

I'm sorry. Fiscally responsible? While the independence of a democratic country is at stake, war crimes are being committed on a scale not seen since WW2, and we have an opportunity to deliver a massive strategic blow to a long time adversary?
No. We should be talking about spending entire percentages of our GDP to decisively defeat Russia. Not a mere few hundred million dollars. But several hundred billion dollars. No more incrementalism. We should be looking at overmatching the entire Russian GDP in aid to Ukraine. Enough to make it obvious to them that it is economically impossible for them to win, and that their only option is to make peace. That is very doable for us. The Russian GDP is 1.6 trillion. The US GDP is 20 trillion, and the rest of NATO is another 20 trillion. Overmatching the entire Russian GDP would cost the US and her allies ~4% of their respective GDPs. That would be painful, but we can afford to tighten our belts for a year or two to make that happen, and it would be well worthwhile (in WW2 our spending was closer to 40% of GDP). When the war is over we should be looking at spending hundreds of billions more, maybe even a couple trillion, on rebuilding Ukraine with a modern Marshal plan. 

I suppose US politics are very relevant to the war effort, since continued US support depends on the attitudes of its voters. But I'm not worried on that front. The current administration is very much committed to helping Ukraine, and while I admit a possibility of this turning into a multi-year war (although Russia having the strength to carry it on that long would require that they officially declare war and mobilize) it seems extremely unlikely that it will carry on until the next presidential election. Even if it does, that would basically make Biden a wartime president at the time of the election, practically guaranteeing him the victory (wartime boosts are a very real phenomenon).
In any case, US public opinion seems to be overwhelmingly in support of helping Ukraine. Democrats are obviously opposed to Russia and supportive of protecting a democratic country. Republicans are in a bit of a bind, since their guy has been talking up a big game about how great a guy Putin was for the last several years. And yet, between the fact that Republicans are usually the war party and the obviousness of Russia's aggression, even Republicans are overwhelmingly supportive of Ukraine. The numbers I was able to find claimed 81% of Democrats and 75% of Republicans in support of defending Ukraine. Granting, those numbers were from March. But it seems that American politics has never been more united.

I'm sorry. Fiscally responsible? While the independence of a democratic country is at stake, war crimes are being committed on a scale not seen since WW2, and we have an opportunity to deliver a massive strategic blow to a long time adversary?
No. We should be talking about spending entire percentages of our GDP to decisively defeat Russia. Not a mere few hundred million dollars. But several hundred billion dollars. No more incrementalism. We should be looking at overmatching the entire Russian GDP in aid to Ukraine. Enough to make it obvious to them that it is economically impossible for them to win, and that their only option is to make peace. That is very doable for us. The Russian GDP is 1.6 trillion. The US GDP is 20 trillion, and the rest of NATO is another 20 trillion. Overmatching the entire Russian GDP would cost the US and her allies ~4% of their respective GDPs. That would be painful, but we can afford to tighten our belts for a year or two to make that happen, and it would be well worthwhile (in WW2 our spending was closer to 40% of GDP). When the war is over we should be looking at spending hundreds of billions more, maybe even a couple trillion, on rebuilding Ukraine with a modern Marshal plan. 

I'm sorry. Fiscally responsible? While the independence of a democratic country is at stake, war crimes are being committed on a scale not seen since WW2, and we have an opportunity to deliver a massive strategic blow to a long time adversary?
No. We should be talking about spending entire percentages of our GDP to decisively defeat Russia. Not a mere few hundred million dollars. But several hundred billion dollars. No more incrementalism. We should be looking at overmatching the entire Russian GDP in aid to Ukraine. Enough to make it obvious to them that it is economically impossible for them to win, and that their only option is to make peace. That is very doable for us. The Russian GDP is 1.6 trillion. The US GDP is 20 trillion, and the rest of NATO is another 20 trillion. Overmatching the entire Russian GDP would cost the US and her allies ~4% of their respective GDPs. That would be painful, but we can afford to tighten our belts for a year or two to make that happen, and it would be well worthwhile (in WW2 our spending was closer to 40% of GDP). When the war is over we should be looking at spending hundreds of billions more, maybe even a couple trillion, on rebuilding Ukraine with a modern Marshal plan. 

This is my view. Modern tanks will be rendered obsolete...by more advanced tanks. But until someone comes up with a better way to provide heavy direct firepower than a big-gunned armored vehicle, the tank is here to stay.
Like Nicholas Moran said, obsolescence is driven by capability, not vulnerability. Infantry are extremely vulnerable to bullets, and a bullet is a heck of a lot cheaper than an infantryman. And yet infantry have not been rendered obsolete because nothing else can provide the same capability as infantry (granting that in a century or so we may have robots performing the same jobs as infantry). The presence of weapons that the tank is very vulnerable to is not enough to render it obsolete. The development of something which does a better job of providing the same capability is what will render it obsolete.
I don't know if perhaps precise enough artillery with short enough call-in times could someday provide the same direct fire capabilities as a tank (hitting a moving target could be difficult). That's the only solution I can think of that would actually render the tank truly obsolete. Any vehicle that tried to take over the role of the tank would quickly start evolving to be very tank-like. Even removing the crew and making it remotely operated, or even fully autonomous, doesn't guarantee that it won't still be called a tank.

We're on same page, Steve.  And note that the costs currently (and for next few months) associated w Ukraine are actually pretty trivial compared to what we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Yet in Ukraine we have a much better, by orders of magnitude, chance of making the world better via a Ukrainian victory. 
The future where despots realize that wars of conquest will bring 1000X more cost than benefit is a good one.  The future where Russia has a choice of being N Korea or making real efforts of being a responsible adult is a good one.

Why not? ) This information was in open sources. So, main upgrades of T-64BV mod.2017:
- "Nozh" ERA packed in Kontakt-1 ERA boxes
- gunner's thermal sight TPN-1-TPV (6000 m detection reange of "tank" type target, 4000 m - recognition range, zoom 1x, 2x, 4x)
- commander's observation device TKN-3VUM (3rd gen EOP, 1000 m of range with full moon, 550 m with 1/4 of moon, angle of view 11 deg)
- driver's observation device TVNE-4BUM (3rd gen. EOP, 500 m of range with full moon, 100 m with 1/4 of moon, angle of view 32 deg) 
- digital radio Lybid' K-2RB (licenced Mototrola) - up to 70 km range
- CN-4215 GPS navigation system
There are about 200+ T-64BV mod.2017 were in service on the end of 2021
Also T-64BV mod.2022 was under tests in January

We hadn't any BM Oplot in combat units (one item is for exhibitions doesn't count), we had 5 T-84 "Oplot" mod.2001, we had T-72/B/AV/AMT not less 100-150, I can't say exactly.

Note, I was for the Afghanistan withdrawal for pretty much exactly those reasons. But it's really important to not apply a one-size-fits-all approach to strategic policy. Afghanistan/Iraq/etc were peripheral conflicts of choice. The outcome was never going to affect the global order or our preeminent place within it in any significant way. In fact, those conflicts oriented the US away from peer threats and more important theaters and so could cogently be argued to have actually weakened that order which we lead and from which we reap the benefits. 
Ukraine and the Russian invasion are not in any way peripheral. It's on the border of NATO, on the border of the EU and uncontested Russian taking and control of that space would have profound global effects. Not least of those effects would be the immediate collapse of the rule that European states cannot violently settle disputes or borders. So, I have some sympathy for your argument but it's simply not applicable on this central of a challenge.
P.S. I hope the above is not seen as political per se. It certainly is a very bipartisan position in DC at the moment.
 

I'm sorry. Fiscally responsible? While the independence of a democratic country is at stake, war crimes are being committed on a scale not seen since WW2, and we have an opportunity to deliver a massive strategic blow to a long time adversary?
No. We should be talking about spending entire percentages of our GDP to decisively defeat Russia. Not a mere few hundred million dollars. But several hundred billion dollars. No more incrementalism. We should be looking at overmatching the entire Russian GDP in aid to Ukraine. Enough to make it obvious to them that it is economically impossible for them to win, and that their only option is to make peace. That is very doable for us. The Russian GDP is 1.6 trillion. The US GDP is 20 trillion, and the rest of NATO is another 20 trillion. Overmatching the entire Russian GDP would cost the US and her allies ~4% of their respective GDPs. That would be painful, but we can afford to tighten our belts for a year or two to make that happen, and it would be well worthwhile (in WW2 our spending was closer to 40% of GDP). When the war is over we should be looking at spending hundreds of billions more, maybe even a couple trillion, on rebuilding Ukraine with a modern Marshal plan. 

I'm sorry. Fiscally responsible? While the independence of a democratic country is at stake, war crimes are being committed on a scale not seen since WW2, and we have an opportunity to deliver a massive strategic blow to a long time adversary?
No. We should be talking about spending entire percentages of our GDP to decisively defeat Russia. Not a mere few hundred million dollars. But several hundred billion dollars. No more incrementalism. We should be looking at overmatching the entire Russian GDP in aid to Ukraine. Enough to make it obvious to them that it is economically impossible for them to win, and that their only option is to make peace. That is very doable for us. The Russian GDP is 1.6 trillion. The US GDP is 20 trillion, and the rest of NATO is another 20 trillion. Overmatching the entire Russian GDP would cost the US and her allies ~4% of their respective GDPs. That would be painful, but we can afford to tighten our belts for a year or two to make that happen, and it would be well worthwhile (in WW2 our spending was closer to 40% of GDP). When the war is over we should be looking at spending hundreds of billions more, maybe even a couple trillion, on rebuilding Ukraine with a modern Marshal plan. 

I'm sorry. Fiscally responsible? While the independence of a democratic country is at stake, war crimes are being committed on a scale not seen since WW2, and we have an opportunity to deliver a massive strategic blow to a long time adversary?
No. We should be talking about spending entire percentages of our GDP to decisively defeat Russia. Not a mere few hundred million dollars. But several hundred billion dollars. No more incrementalism. We should be looking at overmatching the entire Russian GDP in aid to Ukraine. Enough to make it obvious to them that it is economically impossible for them to win, and that their only option is to make peace. That is very doable for us. The Russian GDP is 1.6 trillion. The US GDP is 20 trillion, and the rest of NATO is another 20 trillion. Overmatching the entire Russian GDP would cost the US and her allies ~4% of their respective GDPs. That would be painful, but we can afford to tighten our belts for a year or two to make that happen, and it would be well worthwhile (in WW2 our spending was closer to 40% of GDP). When the war is over we should be looking at spending hundreds of billions more, maybe even a couple trillion, on rebuilding Ukraine with a modern Marshal plan. 

I'm sorry. Fiscally responsible? While the independence of a democratic country is at stake, war crimes are being committed on a scale not seen since WW2, and we have an opportunity to deliver a massive strategic blow to a long time adversary?
No. We should be talking about spending entire percentages of our GDP to decisively defeat Russia. Not a mere few hundred million dollars. But several hundred billion dollars. No more incrementalism. We should be looking at overmatching the entire Russian GDP in aid to Ukraine. Enough to make it obvious to them that it is economically impossible for them to win, and that their only option is to make peace. That is very doable for us. The Russian GDP is 1.6 trillion. The US GDP is 20 trillion, and the rest of NATO is another 20 trillion. Overmatching the entire Russian GDP would cost the US and her allies ~4% of their respective GDPs. That would be painful, but we can afford to tighten our belts for a year or two to make that happen, and it would be well worthwhile (in WW2 our spending was closer to 40% of GDP). When the war is over we should be looking at spending hundreds of billions more, maybe even a couple trillion, on rebuilding Ukraine with a modern Marshal plan. 

I'm sorry. Fiscally responsible? While the independence of a democratic country is at stake, war crimes are being committed on a scale not seen since WW2, and we have an opportunity to deliver a massive strategic blow to a long time adversary?
No. We should be talking about spending entire percentages of our GDP to decisively defeat Russia. Not a mere few hundred million dollars. But several hundred billion dollars. No more incrementalism. We should be looking at overmatching the entire Russian GDP in aid to Ukraine. Enough to make it obvious to them that it is economically impossible for them to win, and that their only option is to make peace. That is very doable for us. The Russian GDP is 1.6 trillion. The US GDP is 20 trillion, and the rest of NATO is another 20 trillion. Overmatching the entire Russian GDP would cost the US and her allies ~4% of their respective GDPs. That would be painful, but we can afford to tighten our belts for a year or two to make that happen, and it would be well worthwhile (in WW2 our spending was closer to 40% of GDP). When the war is over we should be looking at spending hundreds of billions more, maybe even a couple trillion, on rebuilding Ukraine with a modern Marshal plan. 

Having heard on the BBC (who just this morning got around to the famous bridging fiasco as breaking news) about how Russia is threatening to encircle Sievierodonetsk, I decided to summarise how the Russian 'threatening to encircle' reports have changed over the war so far:

If I did not know any better I would say that the Russian Navy and Army are in a competition to show the world who is less competent.

Its on the to-do list.  Right after "combined arms" and "logistics", and slightly in front of "do not try the same water crossing more than three times [baby steps]"

As a fin I can confirm. NATO for Finland.
The process was set in motion right after the invasion started. The timetable and result was very clear to fins from the very start. Now it is starting to get public with high level statements. Yesterday parlaments defense committee statement recommended NATO membership. 
Almost all the parties have given pro membership NATO policy statements in the last months (one small left party said no, 7% seats). Only the prime ministers party has not released the revisited NATO policy, it is coming this Saturday.
Sweden is expected to follow the same timeline with Finland.

Apologies if someone already answered this. This is a very crowded thread. Light basically means they are unarmored (not carried in armored vehicles). Their weapons can be as heavy as you like (in fact they would be considered very poorly armed if they only had small arms, to the point that they might practically be considered unarmed), but as long as they don't have any AFVs they are "light infantry". I could hardly imagine any unit not having ATGMs and MANPADS in a modern war, regardless of how "light" it nominally is. "Heavy infantry" means "mechanized infantry".

Gavins! Russia is doomed:
(Dutch YPR-765s)

Given your handle, I imagine this should resonate:
P. We will accept battle?
C. Certainly, why not?
P. We are outnumbered three to one, and five to one on horse. What uninjured men you have are scared and hungry and desperate.
C. That is the advantage we must press home.
P. I was not aware that irony had military usage.
C. We must win or die. Pompey's men have other options.
Your point is well taken, and many of us here have been watching closely for signs of improvement, even in ancient tactical fundamentals like ambush and entrenchment.
Having a back against the wall makes a difference. Russians aren't defending the Rodina, and they know it. So evolution for them is not yet less dangerous than disobeying orders.

Totally mis understood.  This is part of the Russian space program.