How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[FancyCat]

1 hour ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Germany was first with IRIS-T. 

true, but Germany has been long been marked out as the weakest NATO country for pressuring to give armaments. Defensive weapons aren't going to cut it. The Marders would have been a great way for Germany to try and turn the page. 

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-olaf-scholz-ukraine-tank-military-support-conundrum/

From the article linked in May, regarding the PzH 2000s, it illustrates just a very long series of actions characterized by visible slowness, restraint.

Quote

However, Germany’s Panzerhaubitze commitment did not come entirely voluntarily; rather, it was compelled by an earlier Dutch announcement to deliver five of the Howitzers. Since military experts say it requires 12 artillery pieces to use them effectively, another country had to deliver the remaining seven Howitzers to make the deal work. Berlin initially hoped Italy step up, but ultimately agreed to do “a little more than would otherwise have been possible,” as Scholz put it last week.

 

[beardiebloke]

2 hours ago, Huba said:

Actually I misunderstood your post a bit, hence the armaments rant 

I'm not sure I understood my post that well either!  Thanks for the armaments rant... if anywhere is a safe space for such a rant this is it.

A lot of this air power and air defence stuff is alphabet soup to me but I know it's expensive (even by American standards) and the pilots take a lot of training.  I can't believe it would be wasted without a good plan for helping UKR in a big way.  If I was in a Russian trench I'ld be at least as worried about airplanes as Leopards. 

And @Kinophile yes, I'm sure they'll use the right tool for each job.

[Bulletpoint]

2 minutes ago, beardiebloke said:

If I was in a Russian trench I'ld be at least as worried about airplanes as Leopards. 

If I were in a Russian trench, I'd be more worried about drone guided artillery than tanks and airplanes.

Of all the many combat videos I've seen, I can't remember any video of Ukrainian planes or helicopters actually hitting anything. And only a few of tanks causing casualties.

Of course, what's actually happening out there might be different from the media reality, but still. I think this war will be won by intel and artillery.

[Huba]

10 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Of all the many combat videos I've seen, I can't remember any video of Ukrainian planes or helicopters actually hitting anything. And only a few of tanks causing casualties.

I'm really interested if/ how this  will change when JDAMs appear in Ukraine in any considerable numbers.

And speaking about aircraft:

 

Edited January 21, 2023 by Huba

[Haiduk]

@sburke

Colonel Georgiy Shuvayev, chief of artillery and missile troops of 1st Guard Tank Army (simultainously was a commander of 288th artillery brigade of the same Army). Was killed on 1st of Oct

 

[Haiduk]

LostArmor forum about conditions of 150th motor-rifle division. Whole division, which on paper consists of two tank and two motor-rifle regiments, now can field only two BTGs with a lack of officers. 

 - 150th has one BTG near Maryinka. The second BTG has been withdrawn for rest. 

- So, 150th is now able to keep only two BTGs? Damn, they were battered a lot!

- They wanted to form the third, but no available commander staff. They then wanted to pull officers from existing two, but there also lack of officers and many of them don't want to leave own subordinates.

- Bonus in comparison with Great Patriotic War - almost all after treatment returned back in own units. 

- They suffred losses as far as in time of battle for Mariupol. It was a time!

[danfrodo]

another of my links to this feller how does some summaries.  I am linking this one only because of the short video at the bottom relating to the moskva sinking -- really funny.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/1/21/2148454/-Ukraine-update-To-save-Ukraine-this-year-there-is-something-the-United-States-could-do-right-now

 

[Butschi]

44 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

true, but Germany has been long been marked out as the weakest NATO country for pressuring to give armaments. Defensive weapons aren't going to cut it. The Marders would have been a great way for Germany to try and turn the page. 

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-olaf-scholz-ukraine-tank-military-support-conundrum/

From the article linked in May, regarding the PzH 2000s, it illustrates just a very long series of actions characterized by visible slowness, restraint.

 

Seriously, this is no beauty contest. No extra points for delivering weapons and looking good while doing it. Scholz plays a  very convincing scapegoat, for sure. But a) Scholz is not Germany, try to remember that and b) your constant belittling of absolutly everything Germany does is not just a bit self-righteous.

If you need the details again: https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/military-support-ukraine-2054992

That's without the 12.something billion Euro on top.

In absolute terms we are on place 3 or 4 and even in % gdp we are not looking too shabby.

[Artkin]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

by our doctrine yes,  Problem is the UA isn't using our doctrine.

I don't think they need to match our doctrine. For the Kherson assaults they had armor and ifvs working together iirc. 

Just having the upped fcs should have a substantial impact along the entire front line, including the static sectors. So their doctrine very well might change with their new kit. 

Everyone knows what a difference it is to go from T-64BV to M1A2 Abrams in cmbs. Even if it's an older variant, it should be miles ahead lf what Russia or Ukraine have been fielding. 

Edited January 21, 2023 by Artkin

[beardiebloke]

49 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

If I were in a Russian trench, I'd be more worried about drone guided artillery than tanks and airplanes.

Of all the many combat videos I've seen, I can't remember any video of Ukrainian planes or helicopters actually hitting anything. And only a few of tanks causing casualties.

Of course, what's actually happening out there might be different from the media reality, but still. I think this war will be won by intel and artillery.

I agree... I just meant it's weird comparing the amount of discussion/uproar about tanks when it feels like the planes are coming.

[Beleg85]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

If I were in a Russian trench, I'd be more worried about drone guided artillery than tanks and airplanes.

Of all the many combat videos I've seen, I can't remember any video of Ukrainian planes or helicopters actually hitting anything. And only a few of tanks causing casualties.

Of course, what's actually happening out there might be different from the media reality, but still. I think this war will be won by intel and artillery.

It is different; there were plenty of Ukrainian interviews (not all translated into English, but some even by Western volunteers) that talked about planes and tanks of both sides and their effects as devastating, especially early in the war and during offensives. Sometimes Russian tank could even chase singular Ukrainian soldiers in "cat and mouse" game. One of the muscovite deliberate tactics was for example start tank engines, mark the attacks to lure defenders into battlestations and  then unleash artillery, snipers or anti-personnel ATGM's against them. Sometimes it was just to wear them down, but sole presence of heavies and airforce was always corrosive to their morale.

It worked the other way as well, as reported by millblogers, Russian TG channels and movies from combat: we have several clips with Ukrainian tanks riding over trenches, crushing bunkers, chasing infantry off captured positions etc. Reportedly this indirect fire could also be quite accurate, but perhaps more against vehicles than infantry.

But of course agree that Ukrainians seem to be more focused on drone/artillery than heavy armour/planes by sole reason of not possessing them enough.

 

 

Edited January 21, 2023 by Beleg85

[DesertFox]

24 minutes ago, Butschi said:

and even in % gdp we are not looking too shabby.

That is for everyone self to decide. Here are the numbers (% GDP)

Bilateral aid to Ukraine by country GDP 2022 | Statista

[Der Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

true, but Germany has been long been marked out as the weakest NATO country for pressuring to give armaments. Defensive weapons aren't going to cut it. The Marders would have been a great way for Germany to try and turn the page. 

From the article linked in May, regarding the PzH 2000s, it illustrates just a very long series of actions characterized by visible slowness, restraint.

Maybe that's because a behaviour in military matters that is characterized by visible slowness and restraint is exactly how most Germans like their country to approach these matters.

I've said it before, many pages ago in this thread:

The Federal Republic of Germany is not a country with any kind of military decisiveness, whatsoever. Military restraint has been the guiding principle of our foreign policy since the country existed. Sure, other countries might wish that we should finally "grow up" or "become normal" or whatever, but the idea that someone looking for leadership in military policy would ask Germany, of all places, is entirely naive. That's just the way it is.

Edited January 21, 2023 by Der Zeitgeist

[Haiduk]

UKR DeepState OSINT group, which makes daily situation map, has written own conclusion after learning of developments of last 3-4 days in Zaporizhzhia oblast.

- there is no big Russian offensive

- but there were local simultainous probes to advance of four directions in Orikhiv area with forces in two platoon on each direction

- initially enemy managed to push our troops on 2 km, but later UKR arty strike and counter-attack have returned status-quo.

- interesting, that Russian propaganda has drawn maps with Russian zone of control already near Orikhiv or even inside the town, but now they talk about success in grey zone only.

 

Edited January 21, 2023 by Haiduk

[DesertFox]

Interesting read, retweeted by Philips OBrian:

 

 

[Butschi]

19 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

That is for everyone self to decide. Here are the numbers (% GDP)

Bilateral aid to Ukraine by country GDP 2022 | Statista

Worse than some better than quite a few others. Room for improvement, sure, but nothing that warrants this constant nagging.

Edited January 21, 2023 by Butschi

[Hacketäuer]

1 hour ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Maybe that's because a behaviour in military matters that is characterized by visible slowness and restraint is exactly how most Germans like their country to approach these matters.

I've said it before, many pages ago in this thread:

The Federal Republic of Germany is not a country with any kind of military decisiveness, whatsoever. Military restraint has been the guiding principle of our foreign policy since the country existed. Sure, other countries might wish that we should finally "grow up" or "become normal" or whatever, but the idea that someone looking for leadership in military policy would ask Germany, of all places, is entirely naive. That's just the way it is.

I would more or less agree if you mean germany since 1990. Throughout the cold war era the Bundeswehr was certainly not a weak link among the NATO members and I do not see any indecisive Bundeskanzler during that period either. 

A chancellor like Adenauer or Schmidt would have never gambled with germanys trust and credibility as a reliable ally like Scholz ist doing right now. 

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Russian soldier asks in TG channel of some Russian volunteer, who cares about counter-sniper training and equipmnent either he has at least one sniper, because on their position UKR sniper in two days killed 16 men - 12 in one day and 4 in other. He got the answer, that no available sniper for now.

Yeah, a well positioned sniper should be able to do a lot of damage to a mobik/prisoner type unit.  Snipers are a problem even for well trained, experienced units with good communications to supporting units.  Imagine how much damage a single sniper could be in a situation where the targets are clueless and cut off from each other.

Steve

[Beleg85]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

Worse than some better than quite a few others. Room for improvement, sure, but nothing that warrants this constant nagging.

Except politics in time of crisis doesn't work proportionally like that- it's about will and action. Biggest player on continent and literal "shadowy" owner of several sorrounding economies is expected to behave like a leader, not random country from the rank that everybody need to drag for his ears. Add special historical duty (not my words, but successive German politicians) and ostensible aversion to entire war effort on behalf of large part of establishment (ranging from "hide and seek" play to actively excpecting Ukraine defeat) and you will have reasons why this constant nagging is taking place here. Not even touching subject of before-the-war geopolitical stance. Yeah, I get it is not pleasant for you but this is how the things stands- mind, we are talking about people being murdered daily, not a football match. Enduring small Germany-bashing is not that terrible price if done in friendly manner; think about Ukrainians on this forum and their views.

Sorry, but other Germans on this board does not demand from us constantly to stop criticizing Germany when it is clearly doing wrong. They provide much needed context, though. Your society as a whole showed big heart toward refugees and did significant financial-humanitarian contributions, nobody can deny that. But political stance is different issue. I really hope this war will be lesson for German elites that leading is not an easy thing, that Russia can't be trusted in long way and can't be tamed with money and talking alone.

 

Ok folks, let's maybe move away from these rather heavy topics and focus on different issues.

Edited January 21, 2023 by Beleg85

[FancyCat]

 

 

[Der Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Sorry, but other Germans on this board does not demand from us constantly to stop criticizing Germany when it is clearly doing wrong. They provide much needed context, though.

I think in these cases, it's always helpful to remember that we're not here as representatives of our respective governments. I feel no need to support or defend Scholz's behavior simply because I'm not the one being adressed when people here are criticizing Germany.

I find that providing some context especially on domestic political realities in a country can be quite important to understand what's going on, especially since these things are often lost in translation through the international media.

[chuckdyke]

Well we live in a democracy  and if a country is run by a party with a name of something like Pacifist Socialist Democrats don't expect much military spending of this alley on paper. I don't mention any country by name.

[Kraft]

I've read entirely too much about Scholz, a character I'd rather forget

What are your predictions about Bakhmut front instead?

[Der Zeitgeist]

18 minutes ago, Hacketäuer said:

I would more or less agree if you mean germany since 1990. Throughout the cold war era the Bundeswehr was certainly not a weak link among the NATO members and I do not see any indecisive Bundeskanzler during that period either. 

I don't want to drag this too far off-topic, but about the issue of military capabilties and readiness of the Bundeswehr up until 1990, you might want to read this relatively recent title by Sönke Neitzel.

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

he Federal Republic of Germany is not a country with any kind of military decisiveness, whatsoever. Military restraint has been the guiding principle of our foreign policy since the country existed. Sure, other countries might wish that we should finally "grow up" or "become normal" or whatever, but the idea that someone looking for leadership in military policy would ask Germany, of all places, is entirely naive. That's just the way it is.

I guess this is a part of the reason why there's so much being said about the German behavior (see Beleg85 post above).  The German posters here have done an excellent job explaining, though not trying to justify, how it is Germany is not behaving like other nations expect of it.  I have a pretty good understanding of Germany's situation, but now that understanding is much better.  Thank you all for that.

I think it is also very good to continually remind people that Scholz ≠ Germany.  He might be a reflection of a part, even a large part, of German citizens, but that isn't the same thing.  However, it is easily confused even by our German posters' here because at the same time they also speak of long standing policies and political views that are not specific to the Scholz government.  Which means it is not completely wrong to say "Germany" instead of Scholz in some circumstances.

While it is fine to say "well, this is the way Germany is" the next thing that should be said is "unfortunately, this is not the way Germany should be".  At least that is the way I see it.

Times of crisis help define a nation for years to come.  This is Germany's time to decide how much it wants to be involved in European leadership for decades to come.  Based on Germany's prewar importance to Europe, it should be doing a lot more than it is.  It is not "rising to the occasion" and this will not be forgotten by many within Europe and the US.

It is Germany's right to choose how it responds, but it is also the right of the others involved to have an opinion as well.  So far, I'd say it has been a major disappointment.

Steve