How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[DesertFox]

Interesting if true. Could open up some new possibilities for the Ukrainian Army.

 

 

[Beleg85]

19 minutes ago, Huba said:

And regarding the thread posted yesterday that claimed US is supporting DE stance on tanks and the whole witch hunt is all fault of Kaczynski:

Austin is a very big guy from Alabama who commanded entire corps, I imagine when shouting he can be quite convincing.

A  musical clip from Ukraine showing teenagers and other civilians how to avoid and recognize mines left by invavders, which has become a problem by now; interesting example of using modern media to fight on the home front:

 

Edited January 22, 2023 by Beleg85

[FancyCat]

 

[panzermartin]

40 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

 

Were there Leopard factories in Iraq and Afghanistan? Please note that ha logistics across the ocean will have to be paid to Ukraine in the form of promissory notes. Lend Lease is not a free thing

The problem is, I don't think the barrel of debt this war will create for economies has any bottom. It will keep growing and escalating and the final bill will be that big that the Abrams maintenance difference cost will be a drop in the ocean. 

Personally I think the M1A2, despite the headaches, is a more battle proven and a nearly indestructible platform that could prove an Uber weapon like HIMARS. We've seen the issues with Pz2000, who knows what more troubles LEO2 will reveal along the way. 

[FancyCat]

 

[womble]

Just now, panzermartin said:

We've seen the issues with Pz2000

I'm not sure what your referring to, here. There were reports of lots of "worn out" PzH2000s at one point, but given the tempo of their operations at the time, that was hardly surprising, if solely from the point of view of barrel wear. Is there something else?

[Der Zeitgeist]

54 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

 

Were there Leopard factories in Iraq and Afghanistan? Please note that ha logistics across the ocean will have to be paid to Ukraine in the form of promissory notes. Lend Lease is not a free thing

Easy. Let the Germans pay.

I'm not even really joking, this might be one of the easiest ways out of this mess. Scholz would be happy to just send a cheque if that makes the Leopard 2 problem go away. 

[DesertFox]

8 minutes ago, womble said:

I'm not sure what your referring to, here. There were reports of lots of "worn out" PzH2000s at one point, but given the tempo of their operations at the time, that was hardly surprising, if solely from the point of view of barrel wear. Is there something else?

There are no problems made public due to "reasons"...

Bundeswehr-Ausstattung: Nach Puma-Panzer bereitet wohl auch Haubitze 2000 Probleme (merkur.de)

[kevinkin]

Odd world we live in. NATO has the air power to end this war by the Superbowl and they are arguing over M1s vs Leopards. It's like watching someone heard cats as they roll around in the weeds. I get the WMD angle. But maybe it's time to start braising the frog if not boiling it. The lukewarm approach is putting everyone to sleep except the Ukrainian people. 

[Zeleban]

15 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

The problem is, I don't think the barrel of debt this war will create for economies has any bottom. It will keep growing and escalating and the final bill will be that big that the Abrams maintenance difference cost will be a drop in the ocean. 

 

this drop does not matter to the one who discusses it on the forum. This drop matters to whose pocket it will be paid. For me personally, it would be better if the debt barrel was one drop less

[Fernando]

If Morocco can handle more than 200 Abrams, I don't understand by Ukranians could not. 

BTW, those Abrams sold to Morocco ensure that no Leopard 2E could be spared by Spain.

[Battlefront.com]

40 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

Odd world we live in. NATO has the air power to end this war by the Superbowl and they are arguing over M1s vs Leopards. It's like watching someone heard cats as they roll around in the weeds. I get the WMD angle. But maybe it's time to start braising the frog if not boiling it. The lukewarm approach is putting everyone to sleep except the Ukrainian people. 

The tank debate is out of proportion to its importance because it is a proxy "war" about the struggle for political leadership in Europe.  Germany had been the contender before this war started, now many are questioning this due to Germany's many examples of poor leadership since.  I expect that the list of countries complaining the loudest about the tank stuff are also the ones that were the least happy with how the EU was functioning before the war.  As I am not all that knowledgeable about the internal politics of the EU, this is more suspicion than theory.

Steve

[Kraft]

Girkin on large scale RF abilities

Quote

I was asked an interesting question:

"Name the main reason why you think that serious successes of the Russian troops in the offensive are now impossible?"

 

I answer:

Of the whole complex of reasons that very seriously weaken the combat capability of the RF Armed Forces (not only in the offensive, but also in defense), I consider the moral factor to be the main one. The majority of mobilized (and most of the regular) servicemen of the RF Armed Forces have no motivation to sacrifice in the conduct of hostilities against the Armed Forces of Ukraine, since the goals of the war are not only not explained by the authorities, but are not even officially defined at all. At the same time, the disciplinary measures that are at the disposal of the command of the RF Armed Forces "according to the laws of peacetime" are not enough to make military personnel fear them more than death and injury from enemy fire.

Accordingly, to conduct offensives in such conditions with a chance of success are:

- volunteer units (of which there cannot be many);

- Wagner hired units, which have their own "internal ideology" (characteristic of landsknechts) combined with the most severe repressive discipline that goes beyond even the wartime legislation of the USSR era.

 

Hence the conclusion: the command can conduct a full-fledged offensive against the positions of a staunch and stubborn enemy with "elite" units only in very narrow limited areas. (For example, the direction to Soledar-Bakhmut), where you can conduct military operations without involving other forces, except for the "Dead Head attack aircraft". (if someone does not like this definition, please look at the emblems of "Wagner").

 

In all other sectors, a successful offensive is also (theoretically) possible, but only if a multiple numerical and (most importantly) technical superiority over the enemy is created, which makes it possible to suppress his will to resist, and to create an understanding of his own large superiority among his troops. However, when faced with the most persistent and professional units of the enemy, even great superiority is no guarantee of great success.

 

And what do we have? And we have, in general, "parity" in the number of troops (achieved as a result of the autumn "under-mobilization"), some superiority in certain types of heavy equipment and artillery, but with an extreme lack of normal reconnaissance and communications equipment (in which the enemy as a whole has a significant advantage over our troops).

 

Therefore, I believe that if our troops go on a large-scale offensive on one or several sectors of the front - then - with a combination of insufficient forces with low morale of the troops and a very weak disciplinary apparatus (I don’t specifically consider the question of the “quality” of command) - from defeat can only be saved by the even worse condition of the enemy troops. Faced with the staunch and skillful resistance of the enemy, such an offensive will inevitably die out due to the inability of the command to force its troops to go into battle with the necessary degree of military prowess. Which, in turn, can allow the enemy (if he manages to maintain sufficient reserves) to launch counterattacks and achieve success. Perhaps - even operational and strategic nature.

 

What needs to be done to change this situation? - I have spoken and written about 100 times already, probably ... since March of last year. Practically nothing has been done by the highest military and political authorities of the Russian Federation and is not planned. Since the hope "for an agreement with partners" remains and "the rat does not feel driven into a corner" (because it is in an inadequate state and is unable to objectively assess reality).

 

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, Fernando said:

I  wouldn't call what Germany did during the debt crisis as "leadership". And if it was "leadership", then it was the wrong one.

Germany "called the shots" during the debt crisis more than any other single nation in Europe.  The nations offered the deals put out by Germany had little room to negotiate.  Germany acted decisively and without "Scholzing".  That is leadership.  France, of course, was also a major player and acted in large part with Germany.

The fact that Germany was in large part responsible for the debt crisis due to bad lending practices, and the austerity strategy Germany championed is still controversial (putting it mildly), I agree it was not good leadership.  But it was leadership none-the-less.

But we're straying off topic here

Steve

[Ts4EVER]

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

Germany "called the shots" during the debt crisis more than any other single nation in Europe.  The nations offered the deals put out by Germany had little room to negotiate.  Germany acted decisively and without "Scholzing".  That is leadership.  France, of course, was also a major player and acted in large part with Germany.

The fact that Germany was in large part responsible for the debt crisis due to bad lending practices, and the austerity strategy Germany championed is still controversial (putting it mildly), I agree it was not good leadership.  But it was leadership none-the-less.

That's because this economic policy was in line with the neoliberal policy of the German establishment. Waging war or participating in it is not.

[FancyCat]

The problems described in the article referred by the tweets, had Russia not been a paper tiger, they honestly probably could have gotten to Berlin if we hand waved Poland and the Baltics and the U.S forces stationed there. Report is quite scathing.

 

[Battlefront.com]

12 minutes ago, Kraft said:

Girkin on large scale RF abilities

 

Once again, I find myself agreeing with the fascist bastard's clear headed analysis.  To summarize:

1. Russia has few functional units that are both motivated and trained to conduct successful offensive operations
2. The majority of Russian forces have poor morale and training for anything, even defense
3. Relative to Ukraine's forces, Russian equipment (tanks, artillery, rifles, etc) is adequate in numbers and capabilities, but specialized equipment (recon and comms in particular) are severely lacking in both numbers and capabilities
4. This imbalance of force quality means Russia can only conduct very narrow offensive actions at high cost
5. Any large scale offensive action is doomed to failure because it would require relying upon the mass of poor quality units
6. Failure of offensives means weakening Russia's already stressed out defensive capabilities

For the most part Russia has no power to reverse any of these except one... better trained units.  It is possible that the units being trained in Belarus and inside Russia will perform better for larger offensive ops than the units currently available to it.  However, I do not believe the morale problem is fixable and, unlike Girkin, shooting unmotivated soldiers in order to improve morale isn't going to work.  This, BTW, is a concept he's had firmly in his head since 2014 and it seems he's more in favor of it now than ever before.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

17 minutes ago, Ts4EVER said:

That's because this economic policy was in line with the neoliberal policy of the German establishment. Waging war or participating in it is not.

Yes, which is said a couple of pages ago that this is a defining moment for the Germans as a whole.  If they want to be leaders of European policy, they need to "seize the moment".  If they do not want to be leaders of Europe, then they need to figure out who else is available, convince them to lead, then back them up.  Either way it seems that Germany's current policies and their implementation are going to continue to be challenged as ineffective and even counter productive.  It seems Germany's current leadership doesn't see it that way.

Steve

[DesertFox]

15 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

The problems described in the article referred by the tweets, had Russia not been a paper tiger, they honestly probably could have gotten to Berlin if we hand waved Poland and the Baltics and the U.S forces stationed there. Report is quite scathing.

Yes that is a true description about the sorry state of affairs the Bundeswehr has come to since the last 16 years.

This permanent power struggle has paralyzed the ministry. Because the individual areas are blocking each other, new special staffs are constantly being created at the periphery. They are supposed to solve what the apparatus is no longer capable of doing. In reality, though, they merely serve to exacerbate the ministry's dysfunctionality, which increases with each new parallel body. The ministry long ago stretched beyond its target size of 2,500 employees. Well over 3,000 people now work in the bloated ministry.

[Battlefront.com]

13 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

Yes that is a true description about the sorry state of affairs the Bundeswehr has come to since the last 16 years.

This permanent power struggle has paralyzed the ministry. Because the individual areas are blocking each other, new special staffs are constantly being created at the periphery. They are supposed to solve what the apparatus is no longer capable of doing. In reality, though, they merely serve to exacerbate the ministry's dysfunctionality, which increases with each new parallel body. The ministry long ago stretched beyond its target size of 2,500 employees. Well over 3,000 people now work in the bloated ministry.

Back in the 1990s a German friend of mine, who did his time in the BW during the late 1970s, said he didn't think the Bundeswher was capable of defending Germany if there was an invasion.  Sometime in the middle of von der Leyen's time a German reserves officer (LT rank, IIRC) was saying how badly prepared the Bundeswehr really was from his experiences.  I mentioned that this seems to be a long term problem and his response was something like "it's never been this bad".  Soon after that a series of German news articles came out into the public stating how little of the Bundeswher was capable of going to sea, getting into the air, or rolling into combat.  I think things have gotten a little better, but not by much.

The debate about Germany not living up to its 2% GDP military spending was missing the point.  It wasn't that the Germans are under funding their NATO commitment, they are under funding their armed forces.  The two concepts are very different.

This is why I've been in favor of Germany determining how much it wants to spend on the Bundeswher, then shrinking the size of the BW to fit the budget.  This is maybe not as good as raising the budget to fit the needs, but nothing is worse than having an expensive force that isn't capable of performing its job.

Steve

[FancyCat]

The SZ article says Austin got heated with the German Chief of Staff. The GLSDB is also mentioned as being supplied to Ukraine (not everything is announced publicly remember) and the U.S is irritated with Germany cause it supplies heavy equipment and armaments on a unmatched scale and Germany is not matching it.

Article says there are no longer tank depots in Europe to support Abrams? What do you suppose that means?

[DesertFox]

11 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Article says there are no longer tank depots in Europe to support Abrams? What do you suppose that means?

I don´t think that reflects reality, to put it mildly.

The Army just activated its massive gear stockpile in Europe. Here's what that means - Sandboxx

[Harmon Rabb]

You want it you need it, your weekly dose of Perun.

[womble]

2 hours ago, DesertFox said:

There are no problems made public due to "reasons"...

 

So it's the BW PzH2000s that aren't serviceable, not the ones being actively used in a combat zone. Plenty of embarrassing reasons for that which don't involve systemic problems with the design and manufacture. Ask the Russians.

[sburke]

54 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

For the most part Russia has no power to reverse any of these except one... better trained units.  It is possible that the units being trained in Belarus and inside Russia will perform better for larger offensive ops than the units currently available to it.  However, I do not believe the morale problem is fixable and, unlike Girkin, shooting unmotivated soldiers in order to improve morale isn't going to work.  This, BTW, is a concept he's had firmly in his head since 2014 and it seems he's more in favor of it now than ever before.

Steve

I'm in favor of them using this method.  heck they should expand it to any soldier who complains.  About the weather, lack of winter clothing, the camo pattern on their uniforms, the price of gas, developments on real housewives of Leningrad. whatever.  Just shoot more Russians.