How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[FancyCat]

Ukraine does not need tanks, they need aircraft. If the informal agreement really is solid and from what I can tell, is part cowardice, part fear Russia will escalate the conflict, tho I doubt militarily, more likely the economic war gets worse. I doubt the U.S or UK will break it. My only option for a NATO member to provide aircraft would be Poland "going rogue" and providing F16s to Ukraine.

I hope that Poland is willing to do so. (I don't think if Poland lays down the gauntlet, that other NATO partners can stop it but Poland needs to offer it first, assuming that training isn't already underway (which is quite possible still)

[DesertFox]

3 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

I'm pretty sure the dutch military is also involved in this project. Netherlands is keeping a low profile when it comes to arms deliveries to Ukraine, but it wouldn't surprise me if dutch Gepards will also find their way to Ukraine. Until that time, better no ambitious Ukrainian counterattacks. 

 

I think so, because Germany has no Gepards anymore since 2010. I´m pretty sure those are Cheetahs from NL depots.

[Aragorn2002]

2 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

I think so, because Germany has no Gepards anymore since 2010. I´m pretty sure those are Cheetahs from NL depots.

Could very well be. Cheetah is Gepard, but with different radar.

[DesertFox]

3 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

My only option for a NATO member to provide aircraft would be Poland "going rogue" and providing F16s to Ukraine.

They wont. But they could provide their Mig29s IF they can get a good deal somewhere for replacing them with F16s.

[Aragorn2002]

4 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Ukraine does not need tanks, they need aircraft. If the informal agreement really is solid and from what I can tell, is part cowardice, part fear Russia will escalate the conflict, tho I doubt militarily, more likely the economic war gets worse. I doubt the U.S or UK will break it. My only option for a NATO member to provide aircraft would be Poland "going rogue" and providing F16s to Ukraine.

I hope that Poland is willing to do so. (I don't think if Poland lays down the gauntlet, that other NATO partners can stop it but Poland needs to offer it first, assuming that training isn't already underway (which is quite possible still)

Ukraine needs anti air weapons to protect it's ground troops, which is what Gepards are. 

[Aragorn2002]

12 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

They wont. But they could provide their Mig29s IF they can get a good deal somewhere for replacing them with F16s.

Even without replacement they could be send. Air superiority of NATO is total, also over Poland. Calculated risks will have to be taken to give Ukraine the tools to finish off as many Russians as possible. This is not the time for good deals.

I also think Leo1's and Marders must be send to that coureagous Ukrainian army. Putin can't do a damn thing about it and the Ukrainians need them. F*** escalation!

Edited June 17, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[FancyCat]

4 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Ukraine needs anti air weapons to protect it's ground troops, which is what Gepards are. 

Im not familiar with AA, so the fact they are autocannons does not mean they cannot fend off aircraft? So they can provide the mobile support for a offensive? Even high flying aircraft with stand off weaponry? (I know we are supposing Russia is hoarding it's most technological advanced equipment in case of NATO but maybe NATO provided equipment counts)

I can see why NATO may be very reluctant to cross lines with aircraft, Russian gas is extremely important to Europe and if Putin were to cut off gas completely, it would cause a economic crisis in all of Europe. Now yes, Putin gets money, but his bet is that European resolve will waver before Russian resolve and I don't think he's wrong here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/world/europe/russia-gas-cuts-ukraine-germany.html

 

[chuckdyke]

3 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Im not familiar with AA,

This is obvious. 

[FancyCat]

2 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

This is obvious. 

I stand corrected. If the Gepards are useful than good!

[Beleg85]

Russians seem to be heavily attacking Zolotye apex several days in a row already. It's interesting Ukrainians manage to hold there for so long despite being sorrounded from 3 sides.

 

34 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Even without replacement they could be send. Air superiority of NATO is total, also over Poland. Calculated risks will have to be taken to give Ukraine the tools to finish off as many Russians as possible. This is not the time for good deals.

Yes, but it's very high-tier politics and US are not keen on supplying replacements. They probably simply can't do it.

And Lukashenka barks again today, there are several good defence analysts oriented in a region like Konrad Muzyka or A.Dyner who are quite worried that Bielarus may not say the last word, despite being completelly clownish regime. They seem to exchange officer cadre with Russian contract officers and are constantly running manouvers or checks.

 

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Beleg85

[hcrof]

14 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Im not familiar with AA, so the fact they are autocannons does not mean they cannot fend off aircraft? So they can provide the mobile support for a offensive? Even high flying aircraft with stand off weaponry? (I know we are supposing Russia is hoarding it's most technological advanced equipment in case of NATO but maybe NATO provided equipment counts)

I can see why NATO may be very reluctant to cross lines with aircraft, Russian gas is extremely important to Europe and if Putin were to cut off gas completely, it would cause a economic crisis in all of Europe. Now yes, Putin gets money, but his bet is that European resolve will waver before Russian resolve and I don't think he's wrong here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/world/europe/russia-gas-cuts-ukraine-germany.html

 

Russian planes are flying very low to avoid long range air defenses like S-300. A Gepard is short ranged but quick to react to a low flying target so would probably be very effective in this context.

[akd]

19 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

I know we are supposing Russia is hoarding it's most technological advanced equipment in case of NATO

They are not

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, hcrof said:

A Gepard is short ranged but quick to react to a low flying target so would probably be very effective in this context.

Also very effective in urban combat for ground targets. I believe not so much against fixed wing aircraft but gunships.

[Harmon Rabb]

33 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Even without replacement they could be send. Air superiority of NATO is total, also over Poland. Calculated risks will have to be taken to give Ukraine the tools to finish off as many Russians as possible. This is not the time for good deals.

I also think Leo1's and Marders must be send to that coureagous Ukrainian army. Putin can't do a damn thing about it and the Ukrainians need them. F*** escalation!

My apologies if this has already been discussed in this epic topic.

Now that the Rubicon has been crossed and Ukraine is being sent modern artillery why is there still a fear of sending modern tanks over because of a fear of escalation?

As much as I don't like Putin I don't exactly see him launching ICBMs if the Ukrainian military is given some Abrams or Leopard tanks.

[hcrof]

3 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Also very effective in urban combat for ground targets. I believe not so much against fixed wing aircraft but gunships.

I know that Gepard style vehicles were abandoned in the west because they were not seen as very effective against fixed wing aircraft, but given russian tactics in this war I think that assumption may need to be revisited. The Russians seem to favour low level strafing which is exactly what an autocannon can effectively deal with.

[Huba]

18 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

I can see why NATO may be very reluctant to cross lines with aircraft, Russian gas is extremely important to Europe and if Putin were to cut off gas completely, it would cause a economic crisis in all of Europe. Now yes, Putin gets money, but his bet is that European resolve will waver before Russian resolve and I don't think he's wrong here

Speaking of gas cutoffs:

Volume of gas received by Germany is reportedly down by 70% at the moment. 

It looks like Russia is embargeoing itself to spite the West. Its going to suck, gas prices will raise and some industries might shut down in some countries. It was inevitable though. 

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, Harmon Rabb said:

if the Ukrainian military is given some Abrams or Leopard tanks.

What about the training? Logistics and the list goes on. Most countries have only one type of MBT, not several. 

[Harmon Rabb]

17 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

What about the training? Logistics and the list goes on. Most countries have only one type of MBT, not several. 

That's true. I understand the practical issues that would arise from Ukraine getting say the Abrams tank.

I'm more curious about the logic from the fear of escalation crowd why a weapons system like an M777 would not escalate the conflict but an M1A1 would.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Harmon Rabb

[Aragorn2002]

32 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Also very effective in urban combat for ground targets. I believe not so much against fixed wing aircraft but gunships.

https://www.army-technology.com/projects/gepard/

The Gepards is still effective against both. Not state of the art ofcourse, but still lethal against low flying jets and helis and yes ground targets. It is a stop gap, but not one to be underestimated.

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[chuckdyke]

Just now, Aragorn2002 said:

It is a stop gap, but not one to be admissed.

I changed my mind about the Leo 1 too. Still good for infantry support but how quick can people switch who were trained on Russian equipment?

[chuckdyke]

8 minutes ago, Harmon Rabb said:

'm more curious about the logic from the escalation crowd why a weapons system like an M777 would not escalate the conflict but an M1A1 would.

I think that it is just politicians talking to their domestic audience. Manpower is something the Ukraine is not even asking for. They need the tools to get the job done. Time is their enemy as they rely on unwavering support. 

[chuckdyke]

12 minutes ago, Harmon Rabb said:

Abrams tank.

Same as all heavy tanks can the local infrastructure cope? 50 tons is about the cutoff point. Main bridges are obvious targets if you don't have air superiority. 

[Huba]

10 minutes ago, Harmon Rabb said:

That's true. I understand the practical issues that would arise from Ukraine getting say the Abrams tank.

I'm more curious about the logic from the escalation crowd why a weapons system like an M777 would not escalate the conflict but an M1A1 would.

In  case of German tanks and IFVs, the reluctance to see them fight Russians in Ukraine AGAIN is understandable, if maybe a bit silly for outside observer. And there are no non-German AFVs in Europe available in reasonable numbers, except M113s which are arriving in considerable numbers already. 

The escalation narrative is almost dead at this point I think, hence Macron's remark about fighter aircraft not being on the table was strange to me, especially considering that Soviet aircraft were delivered already. 

[kraze]

3 hours ago, YouWillOwnNothing said:

Hate and hybris often makes people blind to reality.

How about some realism?

 

Hmmm this guy is a nobody in front of an old bookshelf and a worn wallpaper - I can tell he is an expert on reality.

[hcrof]

I wonder to what extent politicians are concerned about images of NATO tanks burning on the battlefield? Artillery is not well known by the general public (and harder to hit anyway) but destroyed leopards and Abrams might raise questions.