How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Huba]

3 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

he reminds me more and more of the President of Belarus - Lukashenkо. He probably comes up with excuses for Putin in the same way.

You mean this guy?

[Butschi]

27 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Just a firing ring of rumors back and forth. What seems to be true is Germany wants the U.S to send tanks before allowing any Leopards to be sent.

 

Look, I understand that Germany wants to not go alone, except you aren't!! Come on goddamn it.

Btw. Süddeutsche Zeitung phrases it significantly different than WSJ:

"Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz ist nach Informationen der Süddeutschen Zeitung offenbar zur Lieferung von Leopard-Kampfpanzern an die Ukraine bereit, allerdings unter einer Bedingung."

"According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Chancellor Olaf Scholz is apparently prepared to supply Leopard battle tanks to Ukraine, but on one condition."

[Zeleban]

1 minute ago, Huba said:

You mean this guy?

exactly

[Haiduk]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Interesting!  I've seen mention of this before, but apparently it is widespread enough that it is in the manual.

Sensors on this battlefield are looking more and more like sci-fi movies every day.

Steve

Alas, this "sci-fi" depends from level of motivation of personnel, commanders etc. This all buying for donation, not from MoD supply. If commander and soldiers want to be effective, they will try enhance own capabilities, they will develop terms of reference, they will organize fundrising campaign to buy all toys or if their order is enough big -they can try to order all stuff in one of largest charity funds like Back-and-Alive or other (but these funds work with orderd nor less for battalion needs). 

But, alas we have enough completely other attitude - where commanders are indifferent and soldiers havn't any initiative and can only complain that they havn't anything, awaiting of manna from MoD. 

[Haiduk]

4 hours ago, FancyCat said:

Wow, despite 70 percent of the country polled as worried and wishing to not supply Ukraine, the Bulgarian government in power in the early part of the war provided essential aid to Ukraine

I would say, Bulgarian government just didn't prohibit to own weapon producers and traders to sell ammunition to Ukriane. Until Bulgaria officially agreed in December to supply Ukrianie with weapon (and in very limited list) - we didn't receive anything from their stores.   

Edited January 18, 2023 by Haiduk

[FancyCat]

The most distressing thing is that this comes as Russia bombs apartment buildings filled with civilians with from what I can see news wise, as no regard for even manufactured excuses anymore. The idea of mollifying the West is just carelessly dropped.

And what about European collective defense? Common security policy? I called Germany a vassal state of the U.S in jest. I surely figured that France and Germany, which alike have had the same rhetoric on Ukraine and Russia that at times was harshly criticized, would surely lockstep provide tanks, a symbol of continued French-German alliance that has underpinned European interests and nay, instead he’s waiting for Biden, making all of Europe look idiotic.
 

4 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Btw. Süddeutsche Zeitung phrases it significantly different than WSJ:

"Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz ist nach Informationen der Süddeutschen Zeitung offenbar zur Lieferung von Leopard-Kampfpanzern an die Ukraine bereit, allerdings unter einer Bedingung."

"According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Chancellor Olaf Scholz is apparently prepared to supply Leopard battle tanks to Ukraine, but on one condition."

quote from WSJ: ““One can’t differentiate between direct exports (of German-made tanks) and exports by third countries,” a senior German official said Wednesday.”

this statement by Scholz is just incoherent:

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said on Wednesday that Germany was “strategically interlocked” with friends and partners when it came to making decisions on how to support Ukraine, including with tanks.

“Yet Mr. Scholz remains cautious. Asked on Wednesday why he was hesitating to send Leopard tanks to Kyiv, Mr. Scholz told the World Economic Forum that he was concerned about the Ukraine conflict becoming a global conflagration.

“The Ukrainians can rely on our support in their courageous fight but it is also clear that we want to avoid this becoming a war between Russia and NATO,” Mr. Scholz said.”

 

where is the strategic interlocking? You have France, the UK providing tanks, and you’re still “making decisions”. What happened to the common lockstep? Gah. 

look, yes, no Abrams, it’s unfair to force Europe to burden the hassle of providing tanks, but not really? Strikers, longer range precise bombs, Bradleys, come on, France is providing tanks, this is just incoherent. If truly lockstep, why not talk and hash out a plan with Leopard owning states to pressure the U.S?

2 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

I would say, Bulgarian government just didn't prohibit to own weapon producers and traders to sell ammunition to Ukriane. Until Bulgaria officially agreed in December to supply Ukrianie with weapon (and in very limited list) - we didn't receive anything from their stores.   

I will point to Germany as a example of the state influencing the military industrial complex from accommodating orders. Bulgaria could have easily failed to provide the legal provision to allow exports.

[kraze]

Scholz be like "Ukraine gets Leopards if on February 5th at 1:43 AM at the summit of mount Everest illuminati lizards from Nibiru make their landing in their fusion powered UFOs which are painted in ultramarine and their leader lizard with two dicks sings Jingle Bells in Sinatra voice but in German and... and I didn't mention the exact year".

[Harmon Rabb]

[danfrodo]

2 minutes ago, Harmon Rabb said:

laughed out loud, literally.  Professional humor right there.  

[NamEndedAllen]

1 hour ago, danfrodo said:

That's some great news.  So 150km (93 miles) is gonna be a nice disruption on the supply dumps that RU moved just out of HIMARS range.  I hope they are here soon, if not already.

Yes! I’ve been hoping for months to see provisions for increasing the effective range of Ukraine Arty/missile systems.  Continue to push back Rus HQs and supply, transport -  further disrupt Rus nodes within Ukraine. The ATACMS are about another 100 miles beyond this range. The Great Tank Debate is one thing, but I’m for any enhancement for larger zones of denial, or at least greater risks of disrupting Rus efforts. Not a magic bullet; nothing is. But the new GLSDB munition and its accuracy should add to the healthy rain of precision destruction from HIMARS and other systems that have proven so valuable in the war.

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Haiduk said:

Alas, this "sci-fi" depends from level of motivation of personnel, commanders etc. This all buying for donation, not from MoD supply. If commander and soldiers want to be effective, they will try enhance own capabilities, they will develop terms of reference, they will organize fundrising campaign to buy all toys or if their order is enough big -they can try to order all stuff in one of largest charity funds like Back-and-Alive or other (but these funds work with orderd nor less for battalion needs). 

But, alas we have enough completely other attitude - where commanders are indifferent and soldiers havn't any initiative and can only complain that they havn't anything, awaiting of manna from MoD. 

This does not surprise me.  It was the same when drones started being used in the ATO frontlines, if I am not mistaken.

What Ukraine is doing, more than anything, is testing new things and seeing how well they work.  That part seems to be working very well.  Probably better than it would if the US was fighting this war.  The same reason is at work here, I think.  And that is Ukraine has a weak central supply system while the US has an extremely strong one.  The creativity is there for Ukraine, but the ability to standardize and spread the information/equipment is inefficient.  For the US the creativity is likely not as strong because standardization and the spread of information/equipment is very efficient.

To use other terminology, Ukraine has a "pull" system where units take care of themselves while the US has a centralized "push" system.

At least that is how it looks to me.

In any case, sensors are going to play an increasingly important role for infantry.  Especially passive types.  The days where infantry relied upon "pickets" and trip flairs are nearing an end.

Steve

[kevinkin]

I wonder which Strykers? Just specialized ones or a large continent of general purpose IFVs? I thought the Brads were it for now. But I see the US Army is:

https://www.army.mil/article/246274/army_announces_divestiture_of_the_stryker_mobile_gun_system#:~:text=WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Army,dated cannon and automatic loader.

 

[Huba]

 

10 minutes ago, NamEndedAllen said:

Yes! I’ve been hoping for months to see provisions for increasing the effective range of Ukraine Arty/missile systems.  Continue to push back Rus HQs and supply, transport -  further disrupt Rus nodes within Ukraine. The ATACMS are about another 100 miles beyond this range. The Great Tank Debate is one thing, but I’m for any enhancement for larger zones of denial, or at least greater risks of disrupting Rus efforts. Not a magic bullet; nothing is. But the new GLSDB munition and its accuracy should add to the healthy rain of precision destruction from HIMARS and other systems that have proven so valuable in the war.

Here's a nice range map from DefMon3:

There wont' be any train entering Donbas or the "landbridge after GLSDB appears in the theater, that's gonna be so much fun for the Russians.
In other news, leaked information about numbers of AFVs in incomign new US arms package:

 

[Kinophile]

Love Strykers. Can't WAIT to see how UKR use them in various situations.  

[Kinophile]

In German but worth the translate.. Good overview of the differences, implications of sane and which versions to focus on to create a Leo2A#UKR. 

 

[Butschi]

"U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin also reiterated that the U.S. did not want to provide the Ukrainians with weapons "that they can't fix, that they can't maintain, and that they can't afford in the long run because that's not helpful." The decision was not about a news cycle or what was symbolically valuable, but about "what really helps Ukraine on the battlefield," Austin said." (translated from Zeit Online)

Interesting tidbit. Didn't someone say, a few  pages ago, that the Leopard 2 has this plug in repair system (that's not made for direct frontline repairs)? How does this compare to the Abrams?

 

[Vet 0369]

9 hours 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. 

Admittedly, I know next to nothing regarding turbine engines in ground vehicles, so I’m a bit confused about this. I’ve had an FAA Airman Certificate for Mechanic, with Airframe and Powerplant Certifications for almost 50 years (46 to be exact), and I believe that turbine engines are much more reliable and easier to maintain than reciprocating engines. A recip can have hundreds of parts that are subject to wear and failure, while a turbine engine has relatively few parts that can wear/fail.

If a recip has issues, one tends to troubleshoot the issue(s) and fix them in place, while with a turbine engine, unless it’s an igniter or the electronic control unit (ECU) or the full-authority, digital electronic control unit (FADEC, an air carrier will simply replace the engine “package.” They don’t send the whole aircraft back to a repair facility. Why is that done with an MBT engine package? A tank engine is similar to a helicopter engine, and in many cases derived from an existing helicopter engine design. Here’s where my armor practices “ignorance” really shines through, why remove an entire MBT, and possibly an experienced crew, from the operational area when all you need are some preconfigured engine packages, a hoisting device, and a support vehicle from the Support Company? Is it because the Army has used manufacturer field reps  for so long that it no longer has capable techs to change an engine?

Not trying to be caustic or trolling, but it’s been a looong time since I worked on F4-B/RF4, and F4-J fighters.

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, Huba said:

 

Here's a nice range map from DefMon3:

There wont' be any train entering Donbas or the "landbridge after GLSDB appears in the theater, that's gonna be so much fun for the Russians.
In other news, leaked information about numbers of AFVs in incomign new US arms package:

 

So this is interesting.  Guess what is in 150km range of those towns on the Azov coast just south of Melitopol?  It rhymes with “strategic bridge that once cut leaves troops in the Crimea hooped”.

[G.I. Joe]

58 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

Not trying to be caustic or trolling, but it’s been a looong time since I worked on F4-B/RF4, and F4-J fighters.

Well, the fact that they were F-4B and F-4J models that hadn't been upgraded to F-4N and F-4S standards does say something...

[FancyCat]

As Putin doubles down on a prolonged conflict, the NYT has some reporting that the U.S has conceded that Ukraine needs more aid, more advanced and sustained over time in order to push Russia to the negotiating table, and therefore threaten the preinvasion occupying territory.

Despite the fact these terror attacks aren't targeting Ukrainian military infrastructure directly (seemingly), the reporting here backs up that Russia hopes to drive Ukraine to forced terms by ruining any chance of a recovery.

Quote

This week, top U.S. and Ukrainian commanders will hold a high-level planning meeting in Germany to game out the offensive planning, another senior U.S. official said. The drill, the official said, is meant to align Ukraine’s battle plans with the kinds of weapons and supplies NATO allies are contributing.  Ukrainian officials fear their country cannot survive years of a stalemated conflict while Russia continues to pound cities and towns. So they see little choice but to target Crimea and put it in jeopardy, a senior U.S. official said, noting that the issue has come up at recent high-level meetings at the White House.

But, officials said, their assessment now is that Russia needs to believe that Crimea is at risk, in part to strengthen Ukraine’s position in any future negotiations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/18/us/politics/ukraine-crimea-military.html

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by FancyCat

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

So this is interesting.  Guess what is in 150km range of those towns on the Azov coast just south of Melitopol?  It rhymes with “strategic bridge that once cut leaves troops in the Crimea hooped”.

Why yes it does....

[NamEndedAllen]

3 hours ago, Huba said:

There wont' be any train entering Donbas or the "landbridge after GLSDB appears in the theater, that's gonna be so much fun for the Russians.

Thanks for the map of ranges. Should be quite interesting to see where and to what extent the AFU uses these along the long stretch of the current Russian line of control.  And whether usage signals where an offensive may take place, or a feint to take away attention from an intended direction. Or…the latter…and THEN the former. 

[Splinty]

2 hours ago, Vet 0369 said:

Admittedly, I know next to nothing regarding turbine engines in ground vehicles, so I’m a bit confused about this. I’ve had an FAA Airman Certificate for Mechanic, with Airframe and Powerplant Certifications for almost 50 years (46 to be exact), and I believe that turbine engines are much more reliable and easier to maintain than reciprocating engines. A recip can have hundreds of parts that are subject to wear and failure, while a turbine engine has relatively few parts that can wear/fail.

If a recip has issues, one tends to troubleshoot the issue(s) and fix them in place, while with a turbine engine, unless it’s an igniter or the electronic control unit (ECU) or the full-authority, digital electronic control unit (FADEC, an air carrier will simply replace the engine “package.” They don’t send the whole aircraft back to a repair facility. Why is that done with an MBT engine package? A tank engine is similar to a helicopter engine, and in many cases derived from an existing helicopter engine design. Here’s where my armor practices “ignorance” really shines through, why remove an entire MBT, and possibly an experienced crew, from the operational area when all you need are some preconfigured engine packages, a hoisting device, and a support vehicle from the Support Company? Is it because the Army has used manufacturer field reps  for so long that it no longer has capable techs to change an engine?

Not trying to be caustic or trolling, but it’s been a looong time since I worked on F4-B/RF4, and F4-J fighters.

For the most part you are right. But to the mechanics who have to pull the engine packs in field conditions close to the front, diesel and turbine are two very different beasts. 2 months after deployment I'm sure the mechanics will be more than proficient, but those two months will have a steep learning curve. The logistical and fuel problems that gas guzzlers like the Abrams require need the same or more time to get their jobs up to snuff. I by no means am saying Ukraine can't handle this, but I DO believe it's going to be a difficult 2 or more months after being deployed in theatre.

[Kinophile]

I'm sorry my German friends, I've lived in Germany, love the place and people, astounding art,  history,  culture,  Beer,  bread,  women, I even like the actual language (!) but holy **** has Scholz made political spinelessness into a martial art. 

Even if he publicly commits He'll find ways to foot drag, reduce, side step and avoid following through in full on his word. 

Let's see Friday, but honestly, I'm not holding my bloody breath.

[FancyCat]

The UK announced tanks for Ukraine on Monday. Has anyone asked Scholz how he feels about the UK risking war between NATO and Russia?