How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Prigozhyn answered in own TG to Norwegian "Aftenposten" media about Anrey Medvedev. He told as if Medvedev had Norwegian citizenship and fought in Norwegian battalion "Nidhyogg" (!!!) in PMC Wager (I suppose, almost all "Norwegians" in this unit were Russians with Norwegian/other Scandinavian citizenship). He also told as if Medvedev should have been accountable for mistreatment attempt of POWs, but escaped. 

 

I heard something on the radio today about him by some think tank guy who specializes in Wagner. 

Medvedev claims he was a platoon commander of prisoners.  After a very short period of time his unit of 15 was down to just 3.  His contract expired and he didn't want to renew, but Wganer (in some way) forced him to continue.  He decided to call it quits over watching Russians murdered by Wagner for not following orders.  He traveled north to Murmansk and then to a small town on the Norwegian border (I forget the name), put on a white "gown" for camouflage, and went over the border.  According to him he barely made it to Norway as he was chased and fired at on the Russian side before being captured by Norwegian border guards.  He is currently being processed in Oslo for illegally crossing the border.

There is no evidence yet and the Norwegians are keeping a lid on information, but it is said that Medvedev brought a whole bunch of documents with him. 

The fact that Prigozhyn is not only acknowledging the guy is from Wagner, but making up a laughable backstory, pretty much confirms that what Medvedev is saying is most likely true.  Especially the part about him traveling with sensitive Wagner documents.

Steve

[FancyCat]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

AFVs are also big and hot, and die pretty well against those ATGM, and artillery systems.  In fact we know the UA has been dismounting well before contact while the RA stays in vehicles and dies.  I am half convinced the lack of infantry armoured coop has nothing to do with bad tactics at this point, it has to do with the fact that the tanks are back 10kms because they are dead any closer.

I am not talking about dug in infantry positions, those are likely a bad idea. I am talking about do fast moving light infantry all armed with NLAWs and radios.  Infantry is vulnerable…but there a lot more of them than we have tanks.  

How do we mesh with the need for infantry to take measures that might leave it vulnerable once contact is established and the need for states to preserve manpower due to political and societal concerns? Sure, toss in tons of infantry, some will get through, but clearly Ukraine cannot for a variety of reasons just equip their manpower with ATGMs and throw them at Russia else this war might have have been different. 

Note, that Ukraine has relied heavily upon deeply entrenched personnel and fortifications in defending the Donbas and it looks like it worked out well enough. 

[FancyCat]

We should also ponder the viability of drones dominating the battlefield with ISR and in offensive actions since drones must be cheap and plentiful because both Ukraine and Russia report that they drop like flies meaning they are able to be defeated.

[dan/california]

 

Quote

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ukraine-the-latest/id1612424182?i=1000595017825

 

Interview with the former head of RAF intelligence, one of the most informative things I have listened to since 2/24.

He also states Britain should seriously consider giving the entire Challenger 2 fleet to Ukraine and starting over with a tank that has a broader logistics base. ~200 units in service just can't maintain the parts infrastructure.

[Battlefront.com]

33 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

How do we mesh with the need for infantry to take measures that might leave it vulnerable once contact is established and the need for states to preserve manpower due to political and societal concerns?

This is something that CM can help sort out.  Explore the possibilities from the safety of a chair

After watching hundreds of videos and reading all kinds of first and third hand evaluations, I have some suspicions of how to deal with this new lethal battlefield.

First, let's identify and rank the most important systems and why:

1. ISR (in particular small drones) - if you have this, everything else becomes easier and more effective.  Even if your guys are all buck naked and without weapons, at the very least you can keep them alive by directing them away from the enemy and pass on information that might make the next unit have better luck.
2. Coms - if you aren't able to quickly and efficiently pass information around outside of your immediate positions, then you're not going to be very effective.  You also won't be able to take advantage of most anything else in this list.
3. PGMs on call - one drone team with a radio can ruin just about any plan the enemy might have.  Period.  Doesn't matter what delivers the PGM, only that it is delivered when it is called for and lands where intended.
4. Dumb artillery on call - not as good as PGMs for some tasks, but given enough of it and of the right caliber it can be just as good or (for widely dispersed targets) better.  But it's more difficult, less likely to succeed, and has a greater chance of being countered.
5. AT weapons - the more capable the better, the greater the number the better.  Sure, it is optimal to have Javelins and NLAWs, but if you have a large number of short range one shot weapons you've got options when combined with ISR and coms.  Especially if the enemy doesn't have dismounted infantry to worry about.
6. Plentiful infantry - as with any battlefield since the dawn of time, the side with more soldiers has a theoretical advantage over the one with fewer.
7. Heavy AFVs - these can be a liability, perhaps even a death sentence, if not handled correctly for the circumstances.  However, when handled correctly they have the opposite effect.  Obviously more capable vehicles are better, however an armored light wheeled vehicle with a M2 mounted on it can be all a force needs to get the job done.

In parallel to this is the quality of the soldiers involved.  Conscripts with all of this stuff aren't going to know how to use it effectively, so a better unit with less capabilities has a better chance of coming out ahead in an engagement.  Being a really good unit with all of this stuff is, obviously, optimal

For sure there are other things like close air support, EW, mine rollers, etc. that any force would like to have on hand, but the above are the things I see as the core of any offensive or defensive capable force.

 

As recently discussed, fixed positions eventually mean death if the enemy has the right forces invested.  Ukraine has found that out, though Russia's lack of PGMs means it has taken a decade's worth of ammunition production to get make much progress.  If Russia had the same ability to deliver PGMs as Ukraine does, we might actually see Russians advancing more than a few meters a day.  Either way, though, when Russia wants to take out a Ukrainian defensive point it can, even if it is horribly inefficient and wasteful.  Mass still has power.

The solution to static death is dynamic life.  Or at least a chance of life.  A force that has all of the stuff I listed off above, defensive or offensive, has what it needs to keep moving around enough to remain combat capable when engaging the enemy.  Especially if the enemy is weak in some areas or, better still, completing lacking.

I see success coming from a force that can successfully bob and weave long enough to land effective blows.  A defensive force must be prepared to flex so as to not be wiped out in a static position.  Force the enemy to commit, slow it down, then smash it with PGMs, AT, plentiful small arms fire, and/or AFVs.  Move tactical positions frequently, even if it means temporarily moving to less desirable ground.  Being in the best location doesn't matter if a PGM lands a meter or two away because you stayed too long.

An offensive force does pretty much the same thing, except when it bobs and weaves it favors stepping forward whenever possible.  Eventually it needs to be able to punch so hard that the opponent is out of the way completely.  And that, finally, is where AFVs in numbers becomes useful.  Not necessarily to engage directly, instead cover ground quickly and keep momentum going.  The more mass the better ONLY IF there is ISR to match and/or the enemy lacks it.  Otherwise the attacker is likely going to lose a lot of vehicles.

In a traditional 2:1 or 3:1 attack vs defender the favored side will be the one with better the better ISR, Coms, and PGMs combo.  Engaging offensively without proper ISR or Coms is just asking for defeat even if everything else is favorable.  Defense is also likely to fail, but it has more room for error.

Obviously this is all pretty crude, but I think it's a fairly fair assessment.

Steve

[FancyCat]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think Ukraine would be fine with unilateral guarantees and "tripwire" forces being present in Eastern Ukraine.

Would the U.S be fine with that? Would NATO be? Shoot, consider the Russian position, say the tripwire forces are placed, and Ukraine can safely rearm and prep for a invasion of the Donbas, with the tripwire forces making it very risky for Russia to preemptively attack, or even defend. Purely from a Russian paranoid perception, allowing the West to walk into Ukraine would render it completely out of their grasp and set it up for the loss of the Donbas and Crimea, (assuming the West can get Ukraine to agree to a ceasefire and withdrawal to pre-invasion lines), Russian forces would need to be clearly losing and in potential of losing the Donbas and/or Crimea to agree to this, except by then its exceedingly likely Ukraine would be in a position to ignore the West and push. 

Consider Putin deciding to abandon on his own without Ukrainian pressure to pre-invasion lines to ensure a good defense, except that is politically unacceptable. Abandon Mariupol? Melitopol? the "Russian" Sea of Azov and land corridor? Severodonetsk?

Consider giving Russia its current or any sort of post-invasion territories, any sort of concession of territory past the invasion point, i absolutely doubt no amount of EU or NATO membership dangling could convince the Ukrainian public to not string up Zelensky. Not to mention all rhetoric focused on warding off China and others on territorial integrity crumbles to dust. 

We know this, its worth restating the reason for full scale invasion being so outlandish, it severely limits the ability of all parties to make agreements, negotiate peace, and the West didn't think Putin would be so inflexible and demented to box himself into such a situation. Then after the initial invasion failed, the expectation that Putin might be flexible, withdraw, maybe get some concessions offered (recall the Ukrainian attempts at peace negotiations in Turkey) not double down and keep invading has not come to pass (in the process hardening Ukrainian resistance), probably a reason why Western aid is only ramping after letting Putin decide to keep going. 

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Would the U.S be fine with that? Would NATO be?

As part of a broader peace deal?  I think so.  The thing is Russia wouldn't likely agree to it as it prefers to commit to things it can back out of.  Backing out of a security guarantee for Ukraine that involves US forces on the ground wouldn't likely be viable.  So it's pretty much an academic question.  My point is there are ways for Ukraine to have a satisfactory security arrangement that doesn't involve full NATO membership or even the involvement of more than the US alone.

Steve

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, holoween said:

NLOS atgms are functionally similar to guided artillery except they are easier to intercept. And a walking mine is far less scary than a normal hidden mine because if it walks towards me i can see it. additionally you dont know where i will attack so how many millions of walking mines do you want to spread over the entire border to be able to intercept an attack and why arent dumb mines cheaper and easier for the same purpose?

The race between the next generation of smart missiles and artillery rounds , and systems to intercept, jam, confuse, or otherwise confound those systems will define the next generation of land warfare. It has basically been the whole ball game for air and seapower for decades now. It really all comes down to what gets better faster. Missiles seem to have a cost edge, especially when you figure in the logistics tail for heavy AFVs. But it is possible some sort of beam weapon reverses this dynamic, and everything visible above the horizon dies. The Army has some programs that imply they might be on the edge of a break through. So far I have seen a lot of positive buzz, but not a single specification on what these new beam systems can do.

[FancyCat]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

So it's pretty much an academic question.

The initial question was if I'm recalling correctly, what could be considered victory outcomes for either Ukraine or Russia. My point was to underline that unless Ukraine is able to as you put it, "win the peace", diminishing Russian power does not result in a Western or Ukrainian win without unlikely possibilities occurring and without a Ukrainian victory, it is unlikely to win in peacetime, Russia still sorta gets a win or draw and definitely a draw or win for Russia damages the West severely.

A apt thread below, a scenario where the West is unable to expand the benefits of closeness to Western values and countries, will only strengthen those who seek it's decline. Allowing Ukraine to fail will signify our continued decline.

Millions of Ukrainians have left Ukraine, and as I outlined earlier, they will not return unless Ukraine is victorious.

 

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

The initial question was if I'm recalling correctly, what could be considered victory outcomes for either Ukraine or Russia. My point was to underline that unless Ukraine is able to as you put it, "win the peace", diminishing Russian power does not result in a Western or Ukrainian win without unlikely possibilities occurring and without a Ukrainian victory, it is unlikely to win in peacetime, Russia still sorta gets a win or draw and definitely a draw or win for Russia damages the West severely.

Of course, but as part of that question is how can this war end positively for Ukraine without Russia being destroyed in the process.  Ukraine was willing to give up NATO membership for peace with Russia, but not without some other form of security guarantee.  Russia rejected this because it wants Ukraine destroyed, not secure.

That was then, this is now.

Russia needs out of this war, whether it has fully admitted it to itself or not.  Eventually it will either have to negotiate (REALLY negotiate) or it will become a failed state even more than it already is.  Going on the massive presumption that Russia will chose to negotiate, both sides have a bone to pick about security guarrantees.

The fact is Russia doesn't want peace, it wants destruction.  Any meaningful security arrangement for Ukraine, therefore, is not going to be acceptable to Russia.  Doesn't matter if it is NATO membership or a coalition of nations outside of it.  Obviously, Ukraine won't accept any peace deal offered by Russia without a real guarantee of its security.  Presuming neither state decides to surrender to the other, one nation has to lose outright for this war to end.  All of us, including Russia, are doing their best to make sure Russia loses

The reality is that Ukraine needs something other than NATO security for at least the short term because there's no chance Ukraine will be admitted to NATO the day of a peace deal with Russia.  That means some other solid guarantee is needed.  A coalition of US led nations could easily provide that with boots on the ground (i.e. tripwire force).

 

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

A apt thread below, a scenario where the West is unable to expand the benefits of closeness to Western values and countries, will only strengthen those who seek it's decline. Allowing Ukraine to fail will signify our continued decline.

Millions of Ukrainians have left Ukraine, and as I outlined earlier, they will not return unless Ukraine is victorious.

Correction... they will not return if their host nations allow them to stay.  But yes, generally, victory is a prerequisite for their return.

Steve

[Seedorf81]

Just now:

Kiev suburb, helicopter crashes in urban area, 16 dead, Minister of Home Affairs among dead.

No report on what caused the crash.

[Seedorf81]

Update:

Minister is Dennis Monastyrsky, also other high-ranking officials and two kids among the dead.

Helo hit school.

[TheVulture]

7 hours ago, dan/california said:

AFVs are not obsolete in THIS war, the war five or ten years from now could be very different. Let me just throw out one improvement in ATGMS that is so obvious I am shocked it hasn't been deployed already . The Stugna P has already demonstrated the vast utility of ~50 meters of cable in making ATGMs a lot safer for the operators. The next iteration will separate the optics from the missile. And the missiles become fire and forget aka Javelins. So every missile is launching from a unique location and the expensive optic is somewhere else, and the operator is separated from it. Again I am expecting this any day, in a very few years every piece of the system drives itself around.  So instead of getting tracking the missile back to it origin, and hopefully hitting something or someone there, you have to suppress at least a couple of hundred meters of tree line, and get the operators behind cover.

You can imagine a situation where a hillside has multiple detectors and dozens of missiles available - next gen javelin types with 10km range or more, and one person on the far side of the hill can basically spot and smoke any armour that moves within sight of the hill. Give or take tank active protection systems. And since you're simply not aiming for man-portability here, you can have larger payloads and ranges.

But with passive detectors, and small launch systems that are just small lumps of metal until they activate, there's not much you can do to detect or take out that kind of system directly - and spotting a launch site when it activates just means you've found a location that is no longer useful to you.

It goes against most western ideas of fighting mobile wars where everything moves fast, but what we've seen in Ukraine is that in peer conflicts, stalemates and static front lines might be not-rare feature of future war, so having some capability based around relatively static positions might be useful, rather than gearing almost everything for constant mobility.

[Haiduk]

41 minutes ago, Seedorf81 said:

Update:

Minister is Dennis Monastyrsky, also other high-ranking officials and two kids among the dead.

Helo hit school.

Reportedly this was helicopter of State Emergency Service, more likely EC225. It crased in Brovary town. 9 persons were onboard - all dead. Because of helicopter fell on kindergarden and on the street also many victims on the land -  9 persons lost (among them three children), 29 were injured (among them 15 children). 

All high officials of Ministry of Internal Affairs are lost - minister Denys Monastyrskyi, first deputy of minister Yevheniy Yenin and state secretar of MIA Yuriy Lubkovych

Anyway this was wrong decision to put all chiefs in one helicopter

 According to witnesses, helicopter has flown on low altitude over the town and probably pilots didn't spot in time multy-storey building on their course in fog (this is srange - my house in 11 km from. Brovary and despite cloudy weather, I can't say that too dense fog was around). Then they sharply climbed up to avoid collision, but the helicopter lost control, stalled and crashed. But this is unconfirmed version in TG.

Other versions, which now are sharing are diversion and technical malfunction. It's knowingly, that former minister Avakov, who signed big contract with France and Eurocopter, bought not only new,but also used choppers, which were stored due to their technical problems

On the photo - kindergarden in fire after helicopter crash

Edited January 18, 2023 by Haiduk

[Kinophile]

4 hours ago, dan/california said:

 

 

Interview with the former head of RAF intelligence, one of the most informative things I have listened to since 2/24.

He also states Britain should seriously consider giving the entire Challenger 2 fleet to Ukraine and starting over with a tank that has a broader logistics base. ~200 units in service just can't maintain the parts infrastructure.

LOL Yes a flyboy would say that. While they're at it, the Typhoon's a little long in the tooth, they should put all those to Ukraine also. Give the CR2s some airborne emotional support.

[Huba]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Correction... they will not return if their host nations allow them to stay.  But yes, generally, victory is a prerequisite for their return.

I wouldn't say that, there is a lot of factors going on other than obvious economic woes Ukraine faces. The net balance of Ukrainians entering from/ leaving Poland for Ukraine is negative since many months, people are returning even though there's no end to the war in sight.

Edited January 18, 2023 by Huba

[Kinophile]

5 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Reportedly this was helicopter of State Emergency Service, more likely EC225. It crased in Brovary town. 9 persons were onboard - all dead. Because of helicopter fell on kindergarden and on the street also many victims on the land -  9 persons lost (among them three children), 29 were injured (among them 15 children). 

All high officials of Ministry of Internal Affairs are lost - minister Denys Monastyrskyi, first deputy of minister Yevheniy Yenin and state secretar of MIA Yuriy Lubkovych

Anyway this was wrong decision to put all chiefs in one helicopter

 According to witnesses, helicopter has flown on low altitude over the town and probably pilots didn't spot in time multy-storey building on their course in fog (this is srange - my house in 11 km from. Brovary and despite cloudy weather, I can't say that too dense fog was around). Then they sharply climbed up to avoid collision, but the helicopter lost control, stalled and crashed. But this is unconfirmed version in TG.

Other versions, which now are sharing are diversion and technical malfunction. It's knowingly, that former minister Avakov, who signed big contract with France and Eurocopter, bought not only new,but also used choppers, which were stored due to their technical problems

On the photo - kindergarden in fire after helicopter crash

Oh man. How awful. How stupid to put the 3 highest in one helo, and wtf was the pilot doing flying low in protected airspace?

[Butschi]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Correction... they will not return if their host nations allow them to stay.  But yes, generally, victory is a prerequisite for their return.

That could prove to be a more interesting question than we think now. The host nations may want to keep the well educated refugees. I know there is this discussion on Germany. And these refugees may not want to return to a country ravaged by war, even after a victory. Not everyone is a patriot.

[Lethaface]

6 hours ago, dan/california said:

 

 

Interview with the former head of RAF intelligence, one of the most informative things I have listened to since 2/24.

He also states Britain should seriously consider giving the entire Challenger 2 fleet to Ukraine and starting over with a tank that has a broader logistics base. ~200 units in service just can't maintain the parts infrastructure.

The issue with this (and other posts calling for countries to do away their tanks to Ukraine and get new ones) is: what are your tankers / mechanics etc going to do for the ~decade that it takes to get a new tank in service? Train with tanks from the museum?

 

[Huba]

Kazakhstan will not be allowing unlimited stay of Russian citizens, instead introducing 3-month visas. On one hand it might make avoiding mobilization more difficult, benefiting their war effort, but on the other it again increases pressure in the cooker a little bit.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/kazakhstan-ends-unlimited-stay-russians-2023-01-17/

[chuckdyke]

Who is doing the support logistics? Ukraine can crew the machines, but provide support?

[Huba]

15 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

The issue with this (and other posts calling for countries to do away their tanks to Ukraine and get new ones) is: what are your tankers / mechanics etc going to do for the ~decade that it takes to get a new tank in service? Train with tanks from the museum?

 

Lease/ buy/ get M1s from the US, there's plenty in storage. Not the solution European defence industry might like, that's for sure.

[Lethaface]

6 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is something that CM can help sort out.  Explore the possibilities from the safety of a chair

After watching hundreds of videos and reading all kinds of first and third hand evaluations, I have some suspicions of how to deal with this new lethal battlefield.

First, let's identify and rank the most important systems and why:

1. ISR (in particular small drones) - if you have this, everything else becomes easier and more effective.  Even if your guys are all buck naked and without weapons, at the very least you can keep them alive by directing them away from the enemy and pass on information that might make the next unit have better luck.
2. Coms - if you aren't able to quickly and efficiently pass information around outside of your immediate positions, then you're not going to be very effective.  You also won't be able to take advantage of most anything else in this list.
3. PGMs on call - one drone team with a radio can ruin just about any plan the enemy might have.  Period.  Doesn't matter what delivers the PGM, only that it is delivered when it is called for and lands where intended.
4. Dumb artillery on call - not as good as PGMs for some tasks, but given enough of it and of the right caliber it can be just as good or (for widely dispersed targets) better.  But it's more difficult, less likely to succeed, and has a greater chance of being countered.
5. AT weapons - the more capable the better, the greater the number the better.  Sure, it is optimal to have Javelins and NLAWs, but if you have a large number of short range one shot weapons you've got options when combined with ISR and coms.  Especially if the enemy doesn't have dismounted infantry to worry about.
6. Plentiful infantry - as with any battlefield since the dawn of time, the side with more soldiers has a theoretical advantage over the one with fewer.
7. Heavy AFVs - these can be a liability, perhaps even a death sentence, if not handled correctly for the circumstances.  However, when handled correctly they have the opposite effect.  Obviously more capable vehicles are better, however an armored light wheeled vehicle with a M2 mounted on it can be all a force needs to get the job done.

In parallel to this is the quality of the soldiers involved.  Conscripts with all of this stuff aren't going to know how to use it effectively, so a better unit with less capabilities has a better chance of coming out ahead in an engagement.  Being a really good unit with all of this stuff is, obviously, optimal

For sure there are other things like close air support, EW, mine rollers, etc. that any force would like to have on hand, but the above are the things I see as the core of any offensive or defensive capable force.

 

As recently discussed, fixed positions eventually mean death if the enemy has the right forces invested.  Ukraine has found that out, though Russia's lack of PGMs means it has taken a decade's worth of ammunition production to get make much progress.  If Russia had the same ability to deliver PGMs as Ukraine does, we might actually see Russians advancing more than a few meters a day.  Either way, though, when Russia wants to take out a Ukrainian defensive point it can, even if it is horribly inefficient and wasteful.  Mass still has power.

The solution to static death is dynamic life.  Or at least a chance of life.  A force that has all of the stuff I listed off above, defensive or offensive, has what it needs to keep moving around enough to remain combat capable when engaging the enemy.  Especially if the enemy is weak in some areas or, better still, completing lacking.

I see success coming from a force that can successfully bob and weave long enough to land effective blows.  A defensive force must be prepared to flex so as to not be wiped out in a static position.  Force the enemy to commit, slow it down, then smash it with PGMs, AT, plentiful small arms fire, and/or AFVs.  Move tactical positions frequently, even if it means temporarily moving to less desirable ground.  Being in the best location doesn't matter if a PGM lands a meter or two away because you stayed too long.

An offensive force does pretty much the same thing, except when it bobs and weaves it favors stepping forward whenever possible.  Eventually it needs to be able to punch so hard that the opponent is out of the way completely.  And that, finally, is where AFVs in numbers becomes useful.  Not necessarily to engage directly, instead cover ground quickly and keep momentum going.  The more mass the better ONLY IF there is ISR to match and/or the enemy lacks it.  Otherwise the attacker is likely going to lose a lot of vehicles.

In a traditional 2:1 or 3:1 attack vs defender the favored side will be the one with better the better ISR, Coms, and PGMs combo.  Engaging offensively without proper ISR or Coms is just asking for defeat even if everything else is favorable.  Defense is also likely to fail, but it has more room for error.

Obviously this is all pretty crude, but I think it's a fairly fair assessment.

Steve

One thing I'd like to add to your nice list is 'means of production' for almost all items on your list (only humans are self-reproductive at the moment).  

And that means should be flexible, able to be geared up or down in a relative short timeframe according to demand. 

AFAIK most of NATO countries, even the larger ones, wouldn't have had enough ammo/kit to have sustained the war as long as Ukraine had sofar. Creating large stocks of stuff that will be out of date in a couple of years is necessary now I guess, but not the answer for the future if we don't want to get in the same situation we are in now.
Imo parts of NATO should cooperate more on the means of production and standardization of used kit. This is perhaps more of a requirement for the smaller countries compared to the larger ones. 

 

[chuckdyke]

Ursula von der Leyen just stated the Ukraine will get everything it needs and can handle. The 'and can handle' is open for interpretation. 

[Lethaface]

20 minutes ago, Huba said:

Lease/ buy/ get M1s from the US, there's plenty in storage. Not the solution European defence industry might like, that's for sure.

What the defense industry like or don't like is one thing, there is also such a thing as strategic national interests and for example France would never float that boat. 

The other thing would be that you are replacing one temporary item with another temporary item costing quite some overhead. Why not send the Abrams from stock to Ukraine  instead?. Lass hassle, same/better result as Ukraine also doesn't have to deal with the logistics which seem not to be worth it for the 200 challengers that exist.

If the West is going to send heavy AFVs, I'd say they better chose one and deliver a full service package to Ukraine - including training, logistics tail, etc. But I guess because of industry /national / geopolitical interests that won't happen.

Edited January 18, 2023 by Lethaface