Battlefront.com Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 1 minute ago, sross112 said: I know you guys are really smart but I think you are overlooking the operational benefits to this route. Looking at Combatintman's map it is the roughest route with the most forest. Rough Terrain and Forest = Less Agricultural land = Less tractors = Less operational losses. In order to keep the loss of equipment to a minimum they have selected the least tractor friendly terrain to conduct their assault!! An astute observation! It is true, all the equipment that Russia leaves on the battlefield in this area can not be recovered easily until the rest of the offensive fails. This denies Ukraine the quick refitting that it is used to. Score another success for the great strategists in the Kremlin! Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraze Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 8 minutes ago, chuckdyke said: He succeeded in intimidating NATO. Aspiring for membership has the potential of seeing your country destroyed. Like Ukraine fighting for NATO till the last Ukrainian. For NATO time to call Putin's bluff, invade Belorussia would be a good start. Ukraine wasn't aspiring for NATO membership. Like literally never. 82% Ukrainians were against joining NATO in early 2014. Russians are killing us because we are the "jews". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 12 minutes ago, chuckdyke said: He succeeded in intimidating NATO. So much so that Sweden and Finland want to join it after 60+ years of staying out of it? I guess they could be eager to sign up with a bunch of whimps, but personally I think that's kinda insulting their intelligence. 12 minutes ago, chuckdyke said: Aspiring for membership has the potential of seeing your country destroyed. No, having the misfortune of being next to Russia does. Hence why Finland and Sweden no longer view neutrality as in their best interests. They've seen how well that worked out for Ukraine. Widening the war by invading Belarus is... well... uhm... I'll just leave that alone. If the war is going to be widened, then start by bombing Russian units not the backwaters lackeys that somehow managed to have the good sense of not go all in with Putin. But is still not a good idea. Best way to end this war is to make sure Ukraine can end it on its terms. So far, so good with that. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_MonkeyKing Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 14 minutes ago, sross112 said: Leo 1's are pretty obsolete and probably shouldn't be used to spearhead attacks. Granted an old tank is better than no tank so if they could get them to Ukraine I'm sure they could be put to use. Once this war is over they could be used for some reserve brigades or training but my opinion is the UA needs to upgrade to something that outclasses the RA. I'd vote for the M1A2 or Leo 2A6. M1 would actually probably be a better choice since Poland is going to those. Then you have a friendly neighbor to share training, maintenance and stockpiles with. 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckdyke Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 4 minutes ago, kraze said: Ukraine wasn't aspiring for NATO membership. The day after the signature of NATO’s membership protocol with North Macedonia as its 30th member, Ukraine did something without precedent: it included in its Constitution the engagement to enter officially into NATO and the European Union at the same time. This is quoted from numerous sources by a quick search on the Internent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckdyke Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 2 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said: Obsolete how? It was designed to be superior to the T55 and on par with the T62 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 29 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said: I think this might have more to do with the rushed nature of the operation. Obviously this is all speculation, but here goes anyway... Steve Its all a feint. The real target is.... Jerusalem!!! Putin demands Russia gain control of Jerusalem church as promised (msn.com) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicdain Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 24 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said: An astute observation! It is true, all the equipment that Russia leaves on the battlefield in this area can not be recovered easily until the rest of the offensive fails. This denies Ukraine the quick refitting that it is used to. Score another success for the great strategists in the Kremlin! Steve but shouldn't be an advance in rough and wooded terrain more easily exploited by the defender to set up ambushes? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckdyke Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 6 minutes ago, Nicdain said: but shouldn't be an advance in rough and wooded terrain more easily exploited by the defender to set up ambushes? Do you own Final Blitzkrieg? The Germans tried it twice the first time was most successful. Not to try the most obvious route makes sense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taranis Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 Clashes ongoing at Polohy district of Zaporizhzhia region on the Huliaipole-Pokrovske direction : Ukrainian military foiled 2 Russian advance attempts in Avdiyivka area. As result of artillery shelling 1 civilian killed, gas pipe and several houses damaged : Ukrainian military repelled Russian offensives in Rubizhne and Popasna : 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sross112 Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 (edited) 45 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said: 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. The Leo has some advantages that you point to that I certainly agree with. The 4 man crew and crew comfort for sure. The other systems like fire control, sights and any other technology based stuff I'm not really sure about. I'm basing it on a 30 year difference in technology. The Leo 1A5 was updated in 1987, the T64BM in 2017. You may be totally correct in there not being a difference I'm just assuming there is due to the time that has passed since. So I think that what the UA is running now is probably superior. I guess I fall into the trap of wanting to totally outmatch the opponent so I look at the 1A5 in comparison to the new stuff NATO is running and it falls a little short. You definitely have a point that a good UA crew could probably fight a 1A5 against the RA successfully given what we've seen. I'm pretty sure most of their kit is inferior to the UA kit when it comes to tanks. I just don't think you can spearhead an attack in a 1A5 as confidently as you can in a M1A2. As for the Abrams the US could supply them pretty quick. They would just have to back fill replacements for their stocks. I know, I know, if the US army gave up 500 M1's they'd be crippled and wouldn't be able to stop Canada with the other 4,300 sitting around. My opinion is they have most of those tanks in their inventory in case they had to fight Russia anyway so why not put them to their intended use? I'm pretty sure they could figure out how to build 500 new ones before they figured out how to get the other 4,300 across the Pacific to fight China. For all I know there are probably several hundred languishing in POMCUS sites that could be sent immediately with all the spare parts and ammo they need. Realistically we could give the UA every piece of equipment in the POMCUS sites and still sleep easy at night. It isn't like anyone is worried about the RA steamrolling western Europe anytime soon. Edited April 19, 2022 by sross112 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_MonkeyKing Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 38 minutes ago, chuckdyke said: It was designed to be superior to the T55 and on par with the T62 I would recommend testing CM:SF2 Leo1 against any of the armor Syrians have. Including the T90. I am only talking about Leo1 that have been updated in the 2000s. They are "good enough". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_MonkeyKing Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 3 minutes ago, sross112 said: As for the Abrams the US could supply them pretty quick. They would just have to back fill replacements for their stocks. I know, I know, if the US army gave up 500 M1's they'd be crippled and wouldn't be able to stop Canada with the other 4,300 sitting around. My opinion is they have most of those tanks in their inventory in case they had to fight Russia anyway so why not put them to their intended use? I'm pretty sure they could figure out how to build 500 new ones before they figured out how to get the other 4,300 across the Pacific to fight China. I agree. Abrams would be the best if it would be possible. I am just very doubtful there will ever be the political will to arm Ukraine with the A class US equipment. (or anything that looks like class it in news photos) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraze Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 50 minutes ago, chuckdyke said: The day after the signature of NATO’s membership protocol with North Macedonia as its 30th member, Ukraine did something without precedent: it included in its Constitution the engagement to enter officially into NATO and the European Union at the same time. This is quoted from numerous sources by a quick search on the Internent. Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb 20th 2014. You do remember that, right? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sross112 Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 1 minute ago, The_MonkeyKing said: I agree. Abrams would be the best if it would be possible. I am just very doubtful there will ever be the political will to arm Ukraine with the A class US equipment. (or anything that looks like class it in news photos) Agreed. I don't think we will see top line MBT's until the UA pushes the RA out and everything stabilizes for awhile. Which truly sucks as I'm sure if the west would give them the top line systems they need NOW a lot of lives would be saved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckdyke Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 1 minute ago, kraze said: Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb 20th 2014. You do remember that, right? Did they change the constitution then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraze Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 Just now, chuckdyke said: Did they change the constitution then? No. The change was made whole 5 years into the war and occupation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckdyke Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 1 minute ago, sross112 said: Agreed. I don't think we will see top line MBT's until the UA pushes the RA out and everything stabilizes for awhile. Which truly sucks as I'm sure if the west would give them the top line systems they need NOW a lot of lives would be saved. Even with the Leopard1 we look at three months before we see the first tank in action. Six weeks for training and training the maintenance personnel. I am afraid it was a way out for the German politicians. Their green politics made them dependent on Russia. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_MonkeyKing Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said: Hey, well at least Putin achieved his goal of intimidating Finland. Right? And to point out more important than the 60-70% support for NATO membership is that the people opposing is only around 10%. Rest don't have opinion. Meaning if there was a referendum it would be something like 80-90% result for NATO membership. The NATO membership application will be send in the next 1-2 weeks. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckdyke Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 2 minutes ago, kraze said: No. The change was made whole 5 years into the war and occupation. Appeasement politics? I look at it very cynically, Ukraine is made an example of as the Russian federation may collapse like a deck of cards. If some of the other ethnic groups get the same idea. I always look at Austria Hungary empire, at least the average Austrian is better off than they were hundred years ago. It may be a good thing for the average citizen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huba Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, sross112 said: Leo 1's are pretty obsolete and probably shouldn't be used to spearhead attacks. Granted an old tank is better than no tank so if they could get them to Ukraine I'm sure they could be put to use. Once this war is over they could be used for some reserve brigades or training but my opinion is the UA needs to upgrade to something that outclasses the RA. I'd vote for the M1A2 or Leo 2A6. M1 would actually probably be a better choice since Poland is going to those. Then you have a friendly neighbor to share training, maintenance and stockpiles with. 20 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said: I agree. Abrams would be the best if it would be possible. I am just very doubtful there will ever be the political will to arm Ukraine with the A class US equipment. (or anything that looks like class it in news photos) Well for the Battle of Donbas there will be no armor reinforcements apart from Czech and Polish T-72s that are already there. Godspeed to Ukrainians manning those. Assume all of this is to take longer, like in scenario when Russians do a full mobilization and somehow manage to bring The Horde to the borders in 6 months. M1 is the only modern western tank that there are a considerable reserves of. I really hope that USians are vacuuming sand from those as we speak. Same with remaining Bradleys if there are any lefts, M109 and M270 above all. Scrapping single Leos and other European vehicles from around the continent won't produce much (as there are hardly any reserve) and will create logistical nightmare. USA has to save the day again I'm afraid. Edited April 19, 2022 by Huba 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckdyke Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 22 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said: I am only talking about Leo1 that have been updated in the 2000s. They are "good enough". In the game i knocked out a T72 with the Stryker 105mm but it was sub 1km. Even Leo1 in semi urban areas would be good. If you watch the video the 105mm is found wanting in modern armor warfare. It is still a useful vehicle. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huba Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 (edited) Question is how many we can get there? AFAIK Germans have 150 available, this is not going to cut it in a long term. Unless Greeks are willing to part with more or less their whole fleet of 500. That's actually a way for Ze Germans to step up to the challenge - cancel those debts in exchange for the tanks. Edited April 19, 2022 by Huba 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckdyke Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 1 minute ago, Huba said: Question is how many we can get there? He quotes 6 weeks for training the crew. Then spare parts and training maintenance personnel we look at three months. The time Ukraine needs to have a victory. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taranis Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 Ukrainian soldiers board an armored personnel carrier (APC), not far from the front line with Russian troops, in Izium district, Kharkiv region, on April 18, 2022, during the invasion Russian from Ukraine. ANATOLII STEPANOV / AFP * BMP-2 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.