How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[FancyCat]

There is a lot more Abrams in the world, American logistics are great so getting them to Ukraine probably won't be a severe issue, but as Hertling points out, part of a longer thread, he describes a scenario where logistically it seems quite demanding on Ukraine to manage.

So yes, while maybe there's less Leopard IIs in the wild, if the M1s are having more issues forcing them to be placed out of action more, than effectively numbers aren't going to matter.

 

[DesertFox]

20 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

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

Yeah mid 90s (MoD Stoltenberg and Rühe, CDU) was the last time I was doing service as Officer of Reserve in my old tank bataillon in the function of Btl. S2 involving life firing with our 2A4s in Camp Merrion, Caste Martin, Wales. The problems we had back then, were mostly due to the fact that we still had to cope with the new personal structures after dissolvement of the NVA and integration of our new east german comrades and all these simulator and computer based trainings were still a new field, which the men needed to get used to.

However munition and spare parts for the Leos of the Btl. were plenty and combat readiness was not a big problem because every crew still had their own tank they cared and took responsibility for. We however already sensed that something was in the making, because allotted fuel rations for tanks were reduced and number of kilometers per track also (Kettenkilometer).

It was later then (2000s when government switched from SPD MoD Struck to CDU/CSU MoD von Guttenberg) when a rotational priciple was introduced which reduced the number of tanks in the Btl. to effectively one Coy strength which were then used by all 3 Coy to do training on. Compulsory military consription ended in 2011 and it seems to me more or less from that point on it all somehow went downhill.

[FancyCat]

I'm regards to the article alleging that German reluctance to concede the tank market in Europe to the U.S is a major concern for not giving Leopards to Ukraine, As shown by Defense Minister Lambrecht ordering the Bundeswehr not to look into the Leopards status, political reluctance to support heavy weapons to Ukraine translates into lack of preparedness and steps to support Ukraine which is causing blowback in general for Germany internationally and I suppose soon domestically.

It's been a year, had Scholz and co had even a tidbit of foresight, guidance and just simple leadership, they could have prepped the German military industrial complex to more strongly be able to assist Ukraine, assist efforts to backfill European contributions to Ukraine.

 

 

Edited January 22, 2023 by FancyCat

[Battlefront.com]

11 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

There is a lot more Abrams in the world, American logistics are great so getting them to Ukraine probably won't be a severe issue, but as Hertling points out, part of a longer thread, he describes a scenario where logistically it seems quite demanding on Ukraine to manage.

So yes, while maybe there's less Leopard IIs in the wild, if the M1s are having more issues forcing them to be placed out of action more, than effectively numbers aren't going to matter.

 

I'm with The_Capt on all of this nonsense... it missed the bigger point that neither Abrams nor Leo2 are worth arguing about.  Ukraine would do better with 100 Leo1 or some other tank that is a step up from what they have but easier to maintain than top-of-the-line NATO stuff.  However, for this strategy to work Germany should have been pursuing it 10 months ago, which it obviously didn't.

So if it is between giving Ukraine Leo 2s/Abrams and giving it no MBTs at all, I'd go with no MBTs at all.  Make up for it by giving Ukraine a LOT more artillery and the ability to strike out to 250km.

This is short term 2023 needs I'm talking about.  For 2023+ I think the US should start getting Ukraine prepped to be Abrams based. 

In other words... do it right or don't do it at all.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

Yeah mid 90s (MoD Stoltenberg and Rühe, CDU) was the last time I was doing service as Officer of Reserve in my old tank bataillon in the function of Btl. S2 involving life firing with our 2A4s in Camp Merrion, Caste Martin, Wales. The problems we had back then, were mostly due to the fact that we still had to cope with the new personal structures after dissolvement of the NVA and integration of our new east german comrades and all these simulator and computer based trainings were still a new field, which the men needed to get used to.

However munition and spare parts for the Leos of the Btl. were plenty and combat readiness was not a big problem because every crew still had their own tank they cared and took responsibility for. We however already sensed that something was in the making, because allotted fuel rations for tanks were reduced and number of kilometers per track also (Kettenkilometer).

It was later then (2000s when government switched from SPD MoD Struck to CDU/CSU MoD von Guttenberg) when a rotational priciple was introduced which reduced the number of tanks in the Btl. to effectively one Coy strength which were then used by all 3 Coy to do training on. Compulsory military consription ended in 2011 and it seems to me more or less from that point on it all somehow went downhill.

Thanks for your personal experience and perspective.

I have said for years that Germany should reduce it's forces considerably.  Perhaps no more than 2-3 brigades in total for land forces, coastal navy, and enough aircraft to defend German airspace and afford a significant number for external deployments.  Germany should also create sufficient air transport capability.

As this war is showing us, a really good brigade is worth its weight in gold.  Everything else?  Tin.

Steve

[FancyCat]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Make up for it by giving Ukraine a LOT more artillery and the ability to strike out to 250km.

Isn't NATO focus always been airpower? What artillery do you suppose is left to give? Not withstanding ammo either. Might be time to at least begin the process for western airframes if the answers aren't favorable for artillery.

Note, if we recall the escalation ladder the west has been taking, tanks need to come before airframes and obviously we are referring to western made stuff. We can't skip the step of tanks. (I mean we should but I doubt that will happen, if we truly are doing a boil the frog while giving time to consider stepping out the pot)(meaning this Leopard fight will continue till the decision is made to supply it)(which I mean does mesh with being slow to keep Russia from being alarmed)

[dan/california]

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I'm with The_Capt on all of this nonsense... it missed the bigger point that neither Abrams nor Leo2 are worth arguing about.  Ukraine would do better with 100 Leo1 or some other tank that is a step up from what they have but easier to maintain than top-of-the-line NATO stuff.  However, for this strategy to work Germany should have been pursuing it 10 months ago, which it obviously didn't.

So if it is between giving Ukraine Leo 2s/Abrams and giving it no MBTs at all, I'd go with no MBTs at all.  Make up for it by giving Ukraine a LOT more artillery and the ability to strike out to 250km.

This is short term 2023 needs I'm talking about.  For 2023+ I think the US should start getting Ukraine prepped to be Abrams based. 

In other words... do it right or don't do it at all.

Steve

 

ATACMS and GLSDB are plug and play for the HIMARS. Send them both and lift the prohibition on hitting the closer logistics nodes in Russia. If Ukraine has any airframe that can use the Storm shadow, get those in there too. Last but not least round up literally every 155 tube in Europe that isn't in a frontline line country and send those. Start training on Abrams very publicly, and in quantity. A LOT of this is about demonstrating political will. Make it absolutely clear to the Russians that Ukraine is just going keep getting more stuff, and better stuff, and if Russia wants to draft 500,000 more people well those sad excuses for trenches make pretty good mass graves.

And build the the bleeping ammo plants!

 

[poesel]

Since this thread is now 'How hot is Germany gonna get?' - well, it seems to get interesting in the ruling coalition. This is still the second rank fighting, but that usually does not happen (in the public). I guess next week, the higher ups will have to clear this up. Or not.
FYI: Scholz as chancellor can overrule every minister, but that is politically difficult for ministers of the other parties. Defense is SPD (Scholz), Foreign & Economy Green, Finance FDP (both not Scholz).

https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Panzer-Debatte-treibt-einen-Keil-in-die-Ampel-article23861492.html

[billbindc]

28 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I'm with The_Capt on all of this nonsense... it missed the bigger point that neither Abrams nor Leo2 are worth arguing about.  Ukraine would do better with 100 Leo1 or some other tank that is a step up from what they have but easier to maintain than top-of-the-line NATO stuff.  However, for this strategy to work Germany should have been pursuing it 10 months ago, which it obviously didn't.

So if it is between giving Ukraine Leo 2s/Abrams and giving it no MBTs at all, I'd go with no MBTs at all.  Make up for it by giving Ukraine a LOT more artillery and the ability to strike out to 250km.

This is short term 2023 needs I'm talking about.  For 2023+ I think the US should start getting Ukraine prepped to be Abrams based. 

In other words... do it right or don't do it at all.

Steve

This.

What gets lost in this discussion is that the next six months are going to see battles that will likely decide where this war will be in 2024. Leos and M1’s aren’t going to be on the field even if they were handed over today. Prepping for them should be well under way but today, right now, the war is going to be much more decisively shaped by extended strike capability and ammunition. 

[DesertFox]

9 minutes ago, poesel said:

Since this thread is now 'How hot is Germany gonna get?' - well, it seems to get interesting in the ruling coalition. This is still the second rank fighting, but that usually does not happen (in the public). I guess next week, the higher ups will have to clear this up. Or not.
FYI: Scholz as chancellor can overrule every minister, but that is politically difficult for ministers of the other parties. Defense is SPD (Scholz), Foreign & Economy Green, Finance FDP (both not Scholz).

https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Panzer-Debatte-treibt-einen-Keil-in-die-Ampel-article23861492.html

He already used the 2nd last option before the confidence vote, the so called "Richtlinienkompetenz - policy competence" last time to clear up the nuclear plant debate. If he has to use it again, my guess is that the coalition most likely will implode.

https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/richtlinienkompetenz-101.html

[dan/california]

36 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

I'm regards to the article alleging that German reluctance to concede the tank market in Europe to the U.S is a major concern for not giving Leopards to Ukraine, As shown by Defense Minister Lambrecht ordering the Bundeswehr not to look into the Leopards status, political reluctance to support heavy weapons to Ukraine translates into lack of preparedness and steps to support Ukraine which is causing blowback in general for Germany internationally and I suppose soon domestically.

It's been a year, had Scholz and co had even a tidbit of foresight, guidance and just simple leadership, they could have prepped the German military industrial complex to more strongly be able to assist Ukraine, assist efforts to backfill European contributions to Ukraine.

 

 

Obviously they need to extend this offer to Britain on the Challenger 2s as well. Those might get there in time for tis summers fighting season.

Of course maybe they already have, and people just need a few workdays to get the announcements in order.

[Huba]

41 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

I'm regards to the article alleging that German reluctance to concede the tank market in Europe to the U.S is a major concern for not giving Leopards to Ukraine, As shown by Defense Minister Lambrecht ordering the Bundeswehr not to look into the Leopards status, political reluctance to support heavy weapons to Ukraine translates into lack of preparedness and steps to support Ukraine which is causing blowback in general for Germany internationally and I suppose soon domestically.

It's been a year, had Scholz and co had even a tidbit of foresight, guidance and just simple leadership, they could have prepped the German military industrial complex to more strongly be able to assist Ukraine, assist efforts to backfill European contributions to Ukraine.

 

 

I posted a comment about this some pages back. Losing influence due to countries donating their tanks and opting for M1 instead of some new Leo2 in unspecified future is a valid concern. But using is as an argument to block the transfers is perfectly counterproductive, way to loose the remains of trust as an arms vendor. German armor industry is clearly a victim of scholzing around by the DE gov, I don't see how this situation can be salvaged.

[DesertFox]

 

 

[danfrodo]

39 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I'm with The_Capt on all of this nonsense... it missed the bigger point that neither Abrams nor Leo2 are worth arguing about.  Ukraine would do better with 100 Leo1 or some other tank that is a step up from what they have but easier to maintain than top-of-the-line NATO stuff.  However, for this strategy to work Germany should have been pursuing it 10 months ago, which it obviously didn't.

So if it is between giving Ukraine Leo 2s/Abrams and giving it no MBTs at all, I'd go with no MBTs at all.  Make up for it by giving Ukraine a LOT more artillery and the ability to strike out to 250km.

This is short term 2023 needs I'm talking about.  For 2023+ I think the US should start getting Ukraine prepped to be Abrams based. 

In other words... do it right or don't do it at all.

Steve

Yes, totally agree.  The issue is that due to reluctance on allies part to put together a more cohesive set of good weapons, UKR has a hodge podge of relatively light stuff (plus any soviet tech).  The problem is that UKR is fighting using MRAPS & M113s & other inferior vehicles when they could have bradleys or marders.  The tanks they get don't have to be the best but they have to actually exist in theater and be operational.  Sure, Leo1s.  Or Leo2s.  Abrams probably for 2024.  We're going to see a lot of fighting against dug in infantry, sometimes w ATGMs or tanks, always w RPGs.  This is going to require firepower to support the infantry and counter RU armor.  There's not enough excaliburs to hit every few meters of trench, there will be fighting.

I still think the mud is a big issue for now.  This lets RU sit their best forces on the good roads and put schmucks watching the muddy fields.  Either a long lasting cold front comes or not much occurs until ~May.  But what does May look like?  Could be pretty powerful mech infantry kampfgruppes attacking known weak areas and cracking the line in multiple areas, bypassing the better RU units.  Then RU reacts and there's a different kind of fight, w more tanks needed.  At least that's what I'm seeing.  Of course, the shaping battle behind the lines is happening to facilitate all this. 

[danfrodo]

5 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

 

 

That is the most beautiful thing I've seen in ages.  thx for sharing.  Can't wait to see these guys on solid ground ripping up some RU strongpoint.

[kevinkin]

I don't see this about Germany per se. It's more about the proper way to supply a major war that was somewhat predictable. The arguments over MTBs being aired in public today should have been hashed out prior too, or just after, hostiles so as to present a unified message. I am all for public discourse, but this is war and we can give leadership much more privacy in the decision making process. In the end, this in-fighting will not matter. But the optics are bad and Putin likes that. A tiny gift to a thug who does not deserve one. Even without a formal NATO like structure in the Pacific, I believe the roles and responsibilities of like minded nations are already worked out to deter China and fight them if all else fails. But this is not a truly fair comparison since the US has a much stronger influence on the Pacific, the fighting would be dominated by air/naval operations and would not last too long.   

Edited January 22, 2023 by kevinkin

[Armorgunner]

4 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

That is the most beautiful thing I've seen in ages.  thx for sharing.  Can't wait to see these guys on solid ground ripping up some RU strongpoint.

No ERA, or addon armour? Hope it will be mounted in place in Ukraine.

[Huba]

13 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

 

 

7 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

That is the most beautiful thing I've seen in ages.  thx for sharing.  Can't wait to see these guys on solid ground ripping up some RU strongpoint.

You won't these are M2A3 or A4 that are going to some US unit deployed in Poland or the Baltics. UA is getting M2A2ODS. No need to thank me

[FancyCat]

 

[danfrodo]

5 minutes ago, Huba said:

You won't these are M2A3 or A4 that are going to some US unit deployed in Poland or the Baltics. UA is getting M2A2ODS. No need to thank me

dammit, once again facts getting in the way of a good story.  Dammit.

[Vet 0369]

On 1/20/2023 at 8:23 AM, Sojourner said:

Curious. Pistorius was asked today about sending Leos if US sends Abrams, his response was that was for Scholz to decide, not his decision, and that he hadn't spoken to Scholz about it. Really? What have he and Scholz been talking about all week?

[Haiduk]

UKR soldier about three more scary things at the war - incendiary ammunition, airstrikes and tanks (on 1st place)

The tanky is most scary as for me, because the time for shot-hit very small, ammo is fast and fragments fly apart stout. Plus, the enemy has this sh..ty stuff fu...g many much, they can work daily from 5-7 km and they don't spare its. So, when I hear that "era of tanks is gone" I laugh hystericaly. 

[Der Zeitgeist]

59 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

He already used the 2nd last option before the confidence vote, the so called "Richtlinienkompetenz - policy competence" last time to clear up the nuclear plant debate. If he has to use it again, my guess is that the coalition most likely will implode.

Nah, no way. Neither the Greens nor the FDP have any interest in setting up a new coalition or even elections. 

[Vet 0369]

1 minute ago, Vet 0369 said:

On 1/20/2023 at 8:23 AM, Sojourner said:

Curious. Pistorius was asked today about sending Leos if US sends Abrams, his response was that was for Scholz to decide, not his decision, and that he hadn't spoken to Scholz about it. Really? What have he and Scholz been talking about all week?

Sorry folks, don’t know what happened with my first reply.

I took a two-week course called “Negotiation Skills” one time when I worked when I worked for a major aircraft engine manufacturer. This tactic is known as the “Power of No Power.” It is very effective in a negotiation. “I can’t agree to that because I don’t have the authority.” I’ve actually used it very successfully a number of times.

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, DesertFox said:

 

 

Heh... remember when the pro-Russians got all excited by the few "Terminators" that were seen being transported into Ukraine?  They felt it was the beginning of the end of Ukraine.  I wonder what they think of 3 times more Bradleys being shipped to Ukraine than all Terminators in existence?    And this is just one train.  There could be others at any time.

[edit - damn, these are apparently vehicles of the 1st Cav's rotation.  That makes more sense.  Still, Putin fanbois don't have anything to celebrate as these are in Poland now to give NATO options]

Steve