How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[billbindc]

21 minutes ago, photon said:

Oh, it's definitely true.

The Kamikaze attacks wrought havoc on our task forces even in the face of VT, radar, integrated CAP, and defensive rings. The only successful anti-kamikaze tactic was the big blue blanket (which could only be done by carrier task forces).

Are there any historical instances of a surface gun fleet outfighting a carrier task force?

There was Halsey’s big screwup with Taffy 3 and Kurita’s battle group but that was just 6 jeep carriers. A full sized carrier group would have annihilated the Japanese force.

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 minute ago, sross112 said:

So my question is the why. Why are the people that are actually fighting the war still asking for tanks and IFV's? Our forumite theories are interesting and there are smart people here, but the people actually doing the fighting in the war that is unlike any that any of us have experienced or studied still want vehicles that provide superior force protection and the ability to put direct fire onto targets. Why? 

My next question is if Ukraine could get exactly what they asked for, what would they ask for? What mix of tanks, IFVs/APCs, and MRAPs would they want, and why that mix? Would their preferred mix be different then what they thought on day one? Have they found an abundance of MRAPs with a smattering of tanks and IFVs to be preferable, or would they want mostly Bradleys with a smattering of the others? And why?

Or would they prefer container ships full of drones instead? And why?

This is the core point I keep going back to. Ukraine is spearheading a drone revolution it has to be said, yet they still want / need every armoured vehicle they can get their hands on. They very much understand and value every bit of kit they can get. 

The understanding I get from all AFU sources is that Western kit is overall broadly better than what they used previously, both in terms of offensive firepower / optics and quality and protection / survivability. More importantly, its their source of kit going forward as they their production / refurbishment of existing tanks and AFVs remains modest (And likely subject to constraints given the issue of factories getting struck or being forced to disperse or relocate) 

As for why, well aside from the obvious point that both vehicles and direct fire remain highly relevant to the fight. Ukraine will need to at one point retake its territory, which requires expenditure of vehicles. Ukraine is also in the position where it would much rather expend vehicles than people given its manpower situation. (Good old iron over blood rearing its head again)

The people here are absolutely smart cookies, but I do think some are guilty of overestimating drone capabilities just a bit. 

We just had an example provided a few posts ago, about how it took literally over a dozen FPVs to strike one tank due to EWAR and other issues. While that might still be a cost favourable trade overall, I cant imagine it was very time efficient and very helpful to the guys on the ground dealing with said asset. Sometimes the latter matters more in a combat situation. Especially with soldiers lives at stake. 

[Nastypastie]

25 minutes ago, photon said:

Oh, it's definitely true.

The Kamikaze attacks wrought havoc on our task forces even in the face of VT, radar, integrated CAP, and defensive rings. The only successful anti-kamikaze tactic was the big blue blanket (which could only be done by carrier task forces).

Are there any historical instances of a surface gun fleet outfighting a carrier task force?

Well there is the fact that kamikaze's weren't actually that insane given the situation, which was that Japanese commanders were considering it suicide to attack those task forces anyway for the most part due to their defenses. If young men are being sent to their deaths they might as well maximize their chances for being unpredictable.

And not really, but then again as i stated that is a product of how the war played out. By the time these sorts of vessels were all in service the Kido Butai was all but gone and the Axis navies never fielded anything like that sort of armament.

[sburke]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

The purpose of an IFV is not to "prevent troops from being turned to soup". That is not what we buy them for. They are purchased in order to create and support creation of tactical effects. Namely, mechanized manouevre. If they cannot do that, then they are a gross waste of money regardless if Johnny comes home or not.

And as to that, unless one is attacking an empty border, no vehicles are really producing results. This would be why the operational situation in this war has not really changed in coming up on two years. But hey if the Dutch are buying...well shut me up.

yes and no.  The functional use of IFVs is a bit more than mechanized maneuver.  Resupply, casevac, general troop movements etc  There are a ton of uses even if the front isn't moving where functionally they are very valuable.  The tank on the other hand has only one function as a point weapon.  I think that was the point Steve was making and 200 CV90s in the example cited isn't a whole lot considering the lethality of the current battlefield.

That was more or less what I got from Steve's post, not that somehow IFVs were a more effective offensive weapon.

[billbindc]

38 minutes ago, Nastypastie said:

Well there is the fact that kamikaze's weren't actually that insane given the situation, which was that Japanese commanders were considering it suicide to attack those task forces anyway for the most part due to their defenses. If young men are being sent to their deaths they might as well maximize their chances for being unpredictable.

And not really, but then again as i stated that is a product of how the war played out. By the time these sorts of vessels were all in service the Kido Butai was all but gone and the Axis navies never fielded anything like that sort of armament.

After Formosa, the Kido Butai had only about 40 airframes left intact. If you think of kamikazi attacks as a decision to go with guided missiles because deficits in sufficiently trained pilots and non-obsolete airframes were never going to be made up, it makes complete, if brutal, sense.

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, sross112 said:

So my question is the why. Why are the people that are actually fighting the war still asking for tanks and IFV's? Our forumite theories are interesting and there are smart people here, but the people actually doing the fighting in the war that is unlike any that any of us have experienced or studied still want vehicles that provide superior force protection and the ability to put direct fire onto targets. Why? 

My next question is if Ukraine could get exactly what they asked for, what would they ask for? What mix of tanks, IFVs/APCs, and MRAPs would they want, and why that mix? Would their preferred mix be different then what they thought on day one? Have they found an abundance of MRAPs with a smattering of tanks and IFVs to be preferable, or would they want mostly Bradleys with a smattering of the others? And why?

Or would they prefer container ships full of drones instead? And why?

That's a great question, well done Sross112.  Then the post right below yours shows we're sending more APC/IFVs (not MBTs), interestingly enough.

With tanks, I feel like a battleship aficionado in 1942, where I can no longer be in denial that my beloved armored fist is now mostly just a very expensive target.

[The_Capt]

7 minutes ago, sburke said:

yes and no.  The functional use of IFVs is a bit more than mechanized maneuver.  Resupply, casevac, general troop movements etc  There are a ton of uses even if the front isn't moving where functionally they are very valuable.  The tank on the other hand has only one function as a point weapon.  I think that was the point Steve was making and 200 CV90s in the example cited isn't a whole lot considering the lethality of the current battlefield.

That was more or less what I got from Steve's post, not that somehow IFVs were a more effective offensive weapon.

Uh no. We have specialized vehicles for resupply and casevac. APCs and IFVs can do troop mobility...but that is part of battlefield manoeuvre. Now you can re-role them - hell you can take them on peacekeeping missions, fishing trips or even hold a family bbq out the back. But none of these are why we bought them in the first place. In the business a new capability or platform has a list of High Level Military Requirements (HLMRs) associated with it. For IFVs and APCs they are specifically written to address the main role of mechanized manouevre. If you are using them for a battle taxi there is literally millions being left on the table in equipment and capability you are not using. "I need a scooter to get to work...so I will by a HUMVEE".

IFVs and APCs combine with all sort of other platforms - guns, engineer vehicles, tanks, ISTAR, close/point recce, comms, logistic etc, to create the overall effect of rapid manoeuvre with the aim to dislocate and opponent by outpacing their ability to react. And right now, nothing is able to do this.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, sross112 said:

So my question is the why. Why are the people that are actually fighting the war still asking for tanks and IFV's? Our forumite theories are interesting and there are smart people here, but the people actually doing the fighting in the war that is unlike any that any of us have experienced or studied still want vehicles that provide superior force protection and the ability to put direct fire onto targets. Why? 

My next question is if Ukraine could get exactly what they asked for, what would they ask for? What mix of tanks, IFVs/APCs, and MRAPs would they want, and why that mix? Would their preferred mix be different then what they thought on day one? Have they found an abundance of MRAPs with a smattering of tanks and IFVs to be preferable, or would they want mostly Bradleys with a smattering of the others? And why?

Or would they prefer container ships full of drones instead? And why?

Well I am not sure they are anymore. Ukraine has been asking for ammunition, AD, F16s and support in doing deep strikes. We have not heard a lot of noise about new tanks/mech. In fact it really has not been brought up since 2023 as a major issue:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62002218

I think there is definitely a requirement for IFVs/APC which we have seen doing support to close actions. Drones have been moving up the list steadily since last summer.

Now as to why they may still want them. Well mech still has a role in c-moves, or at least it did. Tanks are being used to snipe (rarely) or indirect fires. But they also come with a heavy logistics burden.

As to drones, the UA wants a "million" in 2024 -  https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cne4vl9gy2wo

 

[Battlefront.com]

55 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

This is the core point I keep going back to. Ukraine is spearheading a drone revolution it has to be said, yet they still want / need every armoured vehicle they can get their hands on. They very much understand and value every bit of kit they can get. 

And every time you bring this up there's a bunch of us that argue that you don't really understand the military procurement culture or the fact that Ukraine is asking for things that already exist, but we're talking about things that should exist for the future.  And every time we bring this up you say "have faith", yet stumble when there's discussions about why that sort of faith is grossly misplaced...

2 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

The answer is pretty obvious really. Complacency. 

So what you are saying is that we should have complete faith in people who have a track record of making bad decisions due to, amongst other things, "Complacency".

See, that's been a big bone of contention with me, and others, since you started posting this stuff.  You very frequently take something that fits your bias and discard/dismiss the rest because it is inconvenient. 

This is important.  I am not arguing as much with your opinions, but the tortured way you support them when challenged to a "logic duel" by someone with a difference of opinion.  Your propensity to use different standards, selective examples, and self moved goalposts is really frustrating. 

As I already pointed out, you refuse to discuss finances and production constraints.  I am convinced it is because you know, deep down, that you lose a lot of ground if you so much as acknowledge that they exist.  Put another way, you know your argument is encased in a bubble and you don't want it popped.

Case in point:

Quote

ME:

This war has shown, more than anything, that infantry needs protection and that APCs/IFVs are currently the only solution for that protection. The war has also shown that survivability of said armored protection is low, even for superior western designs.  Which means to maintain this capability a nation needs to have a lot of spares that are reasonably ready for service.

For the same amount of money the NL is going to invest in it's tiny fleet of tanks it could dramatically expand armored protection for transporting infantry.  Especially if they moved to something like MRAPs vs. IFVs.

Quote

You:
I personally dont understand how you can argue these vehicles are not cost efficient when they are literally stopping the men inside from being turned into soup. People matter more than the platforms they use. The vehicle is ultimately expendable if it means the people inside get to live, which is exactly why a Bradley is going to always be better than a BMP-2.

Nowhere did I say anything even remotely close to what you just said.  In fact, I said that The Netherlands should buy more of these vehicles and not less, especially because we know how easily they are put out of service.  In other words, I am arguing for the same point you just made, not arguing against it.  The difference is that it's not practical to do that and also buy a bunch of MBTs.  sburke pointed this out to you and you wrote this:

Quote

Which the Dutch already have? They have something like 200 CV90s if I recall. (Plus Boxer)

This war shows they should probably have double or triple that number.  So if the most important thing in your view is keeping the crunchies from being fried, then buying things that don't help achieve that at the expense of the things that do is counter to your own arguments.  Well, unless you want to argue "they can and should do both", which gets us right back to the economic and production realities you refuse to address.

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

12 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Well I am not sure they are anymore. Ukraine has been asking for ammunition, AD, F16s and support in doing deep strikes. We have not heard a lot of noise about new tanks/mech. In fact it really has not been brought up since 2023 as a major issue:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62002218

I think there is definitely a requirement for IFVs/APC which we have seen doing support to close actions. Drones have been moving up the list steadily since last summer.

Now as to why they may still want them. Well mech still has a role in c-moves, or at least it did. Tanks are being used to snipe (rarely) or indirect fires. But they also come with a heavy logistics burden.

As to drones, the UA wants a "million" in 2024 -  https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cne4vl9gy2wo

 

They literally just got Bradleys from the USA dude. Posted it a few hours ago

[ArmouredTopHat]

24 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

IFVs and APCs combine with all sort of other platforms - guns, engineer vehicles, tanks, ISTAR, close/point recce, comms, logistic etc, to create the overall effect of rapid manoeuvre with the aim to dislocate and opponent by outpacing their ability to react. And right now, nothing is able to do this.

Except at Kursk because it doesn't count of course  

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, sross112 said:

So my question is the why. Why are the people that are actually fighting the war still asking for tanks and IFV's?

Easily answered by analogy.

You are fighting a fire in your house started by your Tesla car's lithium battery catching fire.  You have used your fire extinguishers and the fire is still going.  The fire department is going to be there in 20 minutes, which will likely mean your house is lost if you can't do something right away.,

You ask your neighbors for help and they respond by saying all they have are more fire extinguishers.  The same ones you just used, in fact.  What do you do:

a) thank your neighbor for the offer, but turn him down because they're obviously not what is needed

b) thank your neighbor for the offer, take what he offers you

I think the only sensible answer is B, don't you agree?

So, then ask yourself what you would do if, as expected, the fire is still going (even if not quite as strongly).  Do you ask your other neighbors for fire extinguishers or just watch your house burn down?  You ask for more extinguishers, right?  Right.

Then the fire department arrives.  Hooray!  But it turns out they never invested in equipment that can put out a lithium fire.  So they roll up with several million Dollars worth of equipment, that they are well trained on how to use, and all they can do is prevent your neighbors houses from catching fire.

So that's the analogy.

In the real world there's two things going on.  Ukraine is desperate and the only stuff available to it are the things the West ALREADY HAS.  What's the point of asking them for things they don't have or are unwilling to part with?  No point.  So they ask for what is available, not necessarily for what they need.

Steve

[FancyCat]

I’ve been hating on U.S lack of support, but APCs and IFVs are a consistent and constant ask from Ukraine, and have been accordingly sent in successive aid packages if one reviews aid packages tho I feel like we could do more, it is occurring. Ukraine’s focus on publicizing aid asks has always been focused not just needs, but wants, specifically the want to push Russian red lines, so aside from air defense which is vital for preventing home front issues and which we absolutely don’t have a lot of to spare so Ukraine must fight for active systems that cut into existing use, and long range missiles to take the fight literally to Russia, Ukraine knows how to push the envelope and part of that is focusing on the big ticket stuff. IFVs are no longer big ticket. But just like things like AT-4s and Stingers that were just announced were included in the latest aid package, asking and publicizing stuff like that being needed isn’t aiming for the sky.

[Battlefront.com]

37 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Except at Kursk because it doesn't count of course  

Sigh... we've been over this and you didn't want to have a reasonable discussion about it then either.

Ukraine chose Kursk because it was basically undefended, they took advantage of Russian strategic weaknesses, and used their best units.  The opposite of what happened in the south during the 2023 offensive where an even higher concentration of armor FAILED to achieve much of anything.

Ukraine could have likely done the Kursk offensive with MRAPs and a few IFVs.  Because, when one looks at it, that's mostly what they used anyway.

Now that Russian forces have firmed up, Ukraine's advances have basically ended and their casualties have gone up.  And yet, Ukraine has tanks in play.  Seems to me they don't do all that much.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, sross112 said:

My next question is if Ukraine could get exactly what they asked for, what would they ask for? What mix of tanks, IFVs/APCs, and MRAPs would they want, and why that mix? Would their preferred mix be different then what they thought on day one? Have they found an abundance of MRAPs with a smattering of tanks and IFVs to be preferable, or would they want mostly Bradleys with a smattering of the others? And why?

Or would they prefer container ships full of drones instead? And why?

They would prefer container ships full of things that win the war.  Unfortunately, the West doesn't have anything that will do that, so they have to make do with what's being offered to them and ask/beg for the things that aren't.

I suspect that if the West offered absolutely everything it had to Ukraine, but with a budget for what they can actually receive, they would prioritize artillery and long strike weapons, such as cruise missiles, HIMARS, etc.  Those are things which have SOME hope of getting this war to start.  MBTs in any quantity won't.  First of all, Ukraine apparently doesn't have the manpower for them anyway.

Air defenses would be a close second.  It's very clear that Russia has found a way to continue the terror bombing attacks and that the only solution to that is more of everything that shoots stuff out of the sky.  Patriots foremost.  Oh, and the ammo to keep using them at exceptionally high rates.

The next thing I'd expect to be at the top of their list is more of the things they already have so that their units can keep up with losses.  It seems the West is doing better with this than earlier ("here are 12 tanks.  Be careful with them because that's all we want to give!"), but my impression is that the supply of replacements is still inadequate for the losses.  At least generally.  I'm sure some systems are doing fine.

Steve

[FancyCat]

21 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

In the real world there's two things going on.  Ukraine is desperate and the only stuff available to it are the things the West ALREADY HAS.  What's the point of asking them for things they don't have or are unwilling to part with?  No point.  So they ask for what is available, not necessarily for what they need.

Steve

While this isn't directly related to the conversation around tanks and IFVs, I don’t think your analogy works in its current form is that Ukraine has been consistently and constantly and some have used this word in this thread responding to Ukraine’s asks in the past, seemingly “ungratefully” pushing Western boundaries, unwillingness to part with things, such that we have arrived to the point where Ukrainian F-16s fly in the skies above Ukraine, forgetting what was being said about the idea in January 2023.

I've pulled some quotes below, looking back on this from Sept. 2024, it's clear to me that Ukraine has always pushed for the stuff off limits, the stuff the West is "unwilling" to provide.

Tbh, I think the goal of Ukrainian requests for western aid aside from the obvious reasons, is to emphasize and make it impossible for Ukraine to be abandoned by the West and to minimize the potential of a bad peace treaty. In the broadest sense, Ukraine's strategy is to hug as close as possible to NATO and the West as to prevent the worse case scenarios from occurring, and part of that strategy has been asking the West for the stuff that makes them uncomfortable.

So in my opinion, Ukraine does need IFVs and APCs and they are "available" but,

First, as pointed out, Ukraine is not really pushing PR asking for more IFVs but thats not because they aren't needed, but Ukraine is actually pursuing a PR strategy emphazing on what's unavailable. IFVs and tanks were once unavailable, therefore they needed to be pushed for. Now they are not, Ukraine has bigger fish to seek.

So to say Ukraine is seeking IFVs cause that's the best they can reach for, it's incorrect, they are actually reaching for long range missiles, and Second, mentioning or not mentioning them PR wise is not a indication that they think or don't think IFVs are necessary for winning the war but more their emphasis that pushing Russian red lines is probably the best way to end the war.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-fighter-jets-agenda-86c16d4b5164bfd8f1fe4697920dac27

Quote

Asked Monday if his administration was considering sending F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine, U.S. President Joe Biden responded, “No.”

On Tuesday, Reznikov was asked if Biden’s ‘’no” to F-16s was the final word.

“All types of help first passed through the ‘no’ stage,” he said. “Which only means ‘no’ at today’s given moment. The second stage is, ‘Let’s talk and study technical possibilities.’ The third stage is, ‘Let’s get your personnel trained.’ And the fourth stage is the transfer (of equipment).”

Reznikov said Ukraine went through those stages before it got the High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or HIMARS, the Bradley armored vehicles and 155mm artillery.

“Remember the story of the German Leopards -- the answer was also ‘no,’” he added. “And now we have a tank coalition. Therefore I believe an airplane coalition is within reach. But first there should always be a leader. And that’s why I’m here.”

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz appeared to balk at providing fighter jets, suggesting Sunday the reason for the discussion might be “domestic political motives” in some countries.

 

[FancyCat]

Quote

"Iran has sent short-range ballistic missiles to Russia, a move that will give Moscow another potent military tool to use in the war against Ukraine and follows stern Western warnings not to provide those arms to Moscow, according to U.S. and European officials." @wstrobel @mgordonwsj @laurnorman

https://www.wsj.com/world/u-s-tells-allies-iran-has-sent-ballistic-missiles-to-russia-9558f4c4?mod=hp_lead_pos2

"A U.S. official confirmed the missiles 'have finally been delivered'...

The shipment involves a couple of hundred short-range ballistic missiles, according to Western officials. Iran has a variety of such weapons, with a range stretching up to around 500 miles.

'This is not the end,' a senior European official said, noting that Iran is expected to keep weapons flowing into Russia"

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

So what you are saying is that we should have complete faith in people who have a track record of making bad decisions due to, amongst other things, "Complacency".

Competent people can make mistakes. I never suggested complete faith, only my opinion that what they did was a good move to rectify a previously bad mistake. Disarming so completely was not a good idea, rearming with appropriate weapons is. 

As for the rest, I feel were just going to spiral again so I think we can leave it there.
 

Seeing a fair amount of AFU deployment lately in the Donbas, hopefully it contributes to slowing down the advance there. 

[Kraft]

29 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

 

Am I remembering it right that the US warned Iran it would lead to consequences if ballistic missiles were sent to russia?

Funny regardless how Iran and NK are in no shape or form "drawn into" this war despite allowing russia to use its weapons to strike deep and hit (civilian) targets. Oh well.

Also, I wonder why the 6bil USD of leftover budget that expires this month has not been used yet, unless the reporting missed a big package? The last few were all in the <2-300ish mil USD range of kitchen sink maintanence.

Edited September 6 by Kraft

[The_Capt]

42 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

While this isn't directly related to the conversation around tanks and IFVs, I don’t think your analogy works in its current form is that Ukraine has been consistently and constantly and some have used this word in this thread responding to Ukraine’s asks in the past, seemingly “ungratefully” pushing Western boundaries, unwillingness to part with things, such that we have arrived to the point where Ukrainian F-16s fly in the skies above Ukraine, forgetting what was being said about the idea in January 2023.

I've pulled some quotes below, looking back on this from Sept. 2024, it's clear to me that Ukraine has always pushed for the stuff off limits, the stuff the West is "unwilling" to provide.

Tbh, I think the goal of Ukrainian requests for western aid aside from the obvious reasons, is to emphasize and make it impossible for Ukraine to be abandoned by the West and to minimize the potential of a bad peace treaty. In the broadest sense, Ukraine's strategy is to hug as close as possible to NATO and the West as to prevent the worse case scenarios from occurring, and part of that strategy has been asking the West for the stuff that makes them uncomfortable.

So in my opinion, Ukraine does need IFVs and APCs and they are "available" but,

First, as pointed out, Ukraine is not really pushing PR asking for more IFVs but thats not because they aren't needed, but Ukraine is actually pursuing a PR strategy emphazing on what's unavailable. IFVs and tanks were once unavailable, therefore they needed to be pushed for. Now they are not, Ukraine has bigger fish to seek.

So to say Ukraine is seeking IFVs cause that's the best they can reach for, it's incorrect, they are actually reaching for long range missiles, and Second, mentioning or not mentioning them PR wise is not a indication that they think or don't think IFVs are necessary for winning the war but more their emphasis that pushing Russian red lines is probably the best way to end the war.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-fighter-jets-agenda-86c16d4b5164bfd8f1fe4697920dac27

 

After all this time you still don't get it, do you?

Western support in this war is not about Ukraine. It is about Russia. Western incrementalism has nothing to do with Ukrainian clever scheming. It is about slowly ratcheting up the pressure on Russia through deliberate and careful escalation. The West has been the pacing horse in this race the whole time. Ukraine would love tac nukes - and frankly I don't blame them. But they are not going to be getting them.

The Western strategy has been consistent...to constrain and squeeze Russia while still offering offramps...and if need be further escalation. 

Finally, I do not know how many times it has to be proven but there is no magic bullet for this war. Ukraine can get long range missiles, hell they can get a few B52s...it will not result in Russia tapping out. F16s, good to have, long lead times...and they are going to re-establish air denial, at best.  

 

[The_Capt]

40 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

 

Heh, and on the topic of escalation.

[sburke]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Uh no. We have specialized vehicles for resupply and casevac. APCs and IFVs can do troop mobility...but that is part of battlefield manoeuvre.

gotcha.  As a lay person I was factoring the IFVs and MRAPs into the more utility functional roles.  Don't know what UA is using but I assumed (maybe... probably... wrongly) that would include Bradleys, CV 90s, M113s etc amongst the tracked set.

[sburke]

Ukraine says it has "regained control of part of Niu York and unblocked" Ukrainian soldiers, in an unprecedented advance in Donetsk (msn.com)

Ukraine's main wishes at the moment are more Western anti-aircraft defense systems and permission from Western partners to allow them to use their weapons to attack targets on Russian soil, which will be discussed due to the security issues faced by the U.S. and its allies and partners.

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

25 minutes ago, sburke said:

Don't know what UA is using but I assumed (maybe... probably... wrongly) that would include Bradleys, CV 90s, M113s etc amongst the tracked set.

Interestingly, the OSINT list of confirmed losses in the Kursk offensive doesn't show any of those vehicles. Tracked stuff is mostly various flavors of BMP and BTR with a handful of Strykers and T-64 tanks. MRAPs and similar vehicles are the majority of losses.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IkJH3PEIYFA0zX6JiJg8b5rKQZIZ91Hrli1267OlQWY/edit?gid=383944295#gid=383944295

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

6 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Interestingly, the OSINT list of confirmed losses in the Kursk offensive doesn't show any of those vehicles. Tracked stuff is mostly various flavors of BMP and BTR with a handful of Strykers and T-64 tanks. MRAPs and similar vehicles are the majority of losses.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IkJH3PEIYFA0zX6JiJg8b5rKQZIZ91Hrli1267OlQWY/edit?gid=383944295#gid=383944295

 

A challenger was also likely lost too