History in the Making: Russian Invasion

02Pilot said:

The problem is not that the US can't spare the tanks, but rather that Ukraine can't support them. The Abrams is hugely labor- and resource-intensive to operate and maintain, and Ukraine just doesn't have the means to do so. One of the major stumbling blocks is the turbine; the Leopard 2, being a diesel, is much easier to deal with. And the US is not going to be maneuvered into a diplomatic corner by the likes of Germany when it comes to anything related to the military. It is a clumsy attempt, and isn't going to win the Germans any points in Washington.

Absolutely understsand and agree.  The Abrams needs more support and care than the average Cold War era MBT.  My question was more of a pondering if NATO is more hesitant to give out of their inventories unless they have a suitable replacement/upgrade should things kick off in more than just Ukraine.  

With that said, your analysis of current German leadership seems to indicate it is more a hesitation to get involved for the sake of not wanting to contribute to conflict.  But, if you want to "disarm", then send your arms to someone who wants to fight, amirite?  

In reply to jmabarone :

The Germans who favor disarmament would much prefer to melt down their tanks and turn them into lampposts or manhole covers or weird post-modernist sculptures honoring Rosa Luxemburg. Sending them off to people who want to actually use them? Much too morally troubling.

FWIW, during the Cold War there was a lot of Soviet/Russian penetration in the West German government, especially in the SPD, as well as a number of influential anti-war and anti-nuclear groups. I have zero evidence to support this, but it would not surprise me a bit to find out that there are people currently giving input on German government decisions who have taken paychecks signed in Moscow. Certainly the playbook is the same.

stroker said:

The army has a "boneyard" (ala the Air Force with Davis-Monthan) with early generation Abrams/Bradley/Striker waiting in reserve here.  Supposedly we have about 3000 Abrams in storage.  I think we can spare a few.  

Just browsing around that area on Google Maps gives you an idea of the scale of the US military budget and abilities. That's what we've got sitting around "just in case," in just one storage facility. Man, that's a loooot of hardware.

I also like that some of the vehicles are lined up like they were using lasers to get them parked, then others are just kinda wonky. Different teams, different aims I guess.

I had an interesting thought about the Kh-22 in reference to the point / counterpoint of weapons development:

As noted above the Kh-22 was developed in the late fifties, early sixties as an anti carrier attack weapon.  To obviously be launched from a distance, and will be very hard to shoot down in it's terminal (mach 3+) phase.  The navy's response to this was the need to shoot down Russian bombers at a distance.  This resulted in (I am assuming) the development of the F-14 and specifically it's long range radar and the Phoenix missile.  The F-14 and the Phoenix (not finally in service until the 70's) where both very expensive weapons for their time. 

The Phoenix missile has a range of over 120 miles, (typical radar homing missiles of the time where in the 30 range) and makes that range in a way similar to the Kh-22, by shooting up to 120,000 ft, cruising at that altitude then diving for the terminal attack.  During the final phase, the Phoenix goes active and uses it's onboard radar to track and attack the target (clearly one reason why it was so expensive)

One of my thoughts in how to help the Ukrainians was to take some of these missiles (which may still be in storage somewhere), which cannot be used on any plane that I know and set them up so they will fly to a particular distant location (normally done via F14's radar / avionics), where the Russians are launching their cruise missiles from, and let the active homing take over.  Probably not feasible, the US would not allow it, and clearly has the potential to shoot down an airliner (which the Russians might even divert one to get hit), not that there is a huge amount of airline service in Russia.

F14 firing Phoenix.  Never used operationally as far as I know.  There were around $200,000 a shot as I remember, in the 80's!!  The testing of the Phoenix BTW was done a few miles from where I live, at Point Magu, where they did a famous 6 targets tracked and shot down by one F14 carrying 6 Phoenix missiles!

Shot of fully loaded F14:

An interesting tidbit:

• Russian forces’ increasing use of incendiary munitions to conduct what appear to be otherwise routine strikes in southern Ukraine supports ISW’s recent assessment that Russian forces likely face a shortage of conventional artillery rounds.

In reply to aircooled :

Does incendiary mean phosphorous?

jmabarone said:

02Pilot said:

The problem is not that the US can't spare the tanks, but rather that Ukraine can't support them. The Abrams is hugely labor- and resource-intensive to operate and maintain, and Ukraine just doesn't have the means to do so. One of the major stumbling blocks is the turbine; the Leopard 2, being a diesel, is much easier to deal with. And the US is not going to be maneuvered into a diplomatic corner by the likes of Germany when it comes to anything related to the military. It is a clumsy attempt, and isn't going to win the Germans any points in Washington.

Absolutely understsand and agree.  The Abrams needs more support and care than the average Cold War era MBT.  My question was more of a pondering if NATO is more hesitant to give out of their inventories unless they have a suitable replacement/upgrade should things kick off in more than just Ukraine.  

With that said, your analysis of current German leadership seems to indicate it is more a hesitation to get involved for the sake of not wanting to contribute to conflict.  But, if you want to "disarm", then send your arms to someone who wants to fight, amirite?  

Realize please that Germany is a lot like the US politically. Conservative, liberal and minority parties. 
  The prime difference there is Germans are German first and political leanings somewhere down their line of priorities. That's why Germans don't waste money winning re-election. If the liberal wing and conservative wing disagree they will figure a way to benefit Germany and that's what they do.  

aircooled said:

One of my thoughts in how to help the Ukrainians was to take some of these missiles (which may still be in storage somewhere), which cannot be used on any plane that I know and set them up so they will fly to a particular distant location (normally done via F14's radar / avionics), where the Russians are launching their cruise missiles from, and let the active homing take over.  Probably not feasible, the US would not allow it, and clearly has the potential to shoot down an airliner (which the Russians might even divert one to get hit), not that there is a huge amount of airline service in Russia.

F14 firing Phoenix.  Never used operationally as far as I know.  There were around $200,000 a shot as I remember, in the 80's!!  The testing of the Phoenix BTW was done a few miles from where I live, at Point Magu, where they did a famous 6 targets tracked and shot down by one F14 carrying 6 Phoenix missiles!

Per the always reliable resource of Wikipedia, the only combat uses of Phoenix missiles has been by Iran.  They are currently the only user.  I would assume that our stock of those missiles was destroyed upon retirement of the F14 for the same reason that the F14s were...so Iran could not use it for spares or rearming.  

frenchyd said:

jmabarone said:

02Pilot said:

The problem is not that the US can't spare the tanks, but rather that Ukraine can't support them. The Abrams is hugely labor- and resource-intensive to operate and maintain, and Ukraine just doesn't have the means to do so. One of the major stumbling blocks is the turbine; the Leopard 2, being a diesel, is much easier to deal with. And the US is not going to be maneuvered into a diplomatic corner by the likes of Germany when it comes to anything related to the military. It is a clumsy attempt, and isn't going to win the Germans any points in Washington.

Absolutely understsand and agree.  The Abrams needs more support and care than the average Cold War era MBT.  My question was more of a pondering if NATO is more hesitant to give out of their inventories unless they have a suitable replacement/upgrade should things kick off in more than just Ukraine.  

With that said, your analysis of current German leadership seems to indicate it is more a hesitation to get involved for the sake of not wanting to contribute to conflict.  But, if you want to "disarm", then send your arms to someone who wants to fight, amirite?  

Realize please that Germany is a lot like the US politically. Conservative, liberal and minority parties. 
  The prime difference there is Germans are German first and political leanings somewhere down their line of priorities. That's why Germans don't waste money winning re-election. If the liberal wing and conservative wing disagree they will figure a way to benefit Germany and that's what they do.  

This is a very loose reading and oversimplification of the German electoral situation. First off, it's a parliamentary system. That alone accounts for much of the consensus-building and accomplishment; the executive is necessarily part of the majority or ruling coalition, so there is an inherent base of support for its policies. Election spending is tightly regulated (see this DW piece for a brief synopsis), so there simply isn't the opportunity to spend the way you see in the US. Beyond both republics utilizing a system of representative democracy to choose their leadership, there's no particularly useful correlation from which to draw lessons or indications of future policy direction.

jmabarone said:

 

Per the always reliable resource of Wikipedia, the only combat uses of Phoenix missiles has been by Iran.  They are currently the only user.  I would assume that our stock of those missiles was destroyed upon retirement of the F14 for the same reason that the F14s were...so Iran could not use it for spares or rearming.  

Ah yes, I think I remember hearing something about that now, thanks.

Regarding white phosphorus, it is the chemical generally used in incendiary ammunition, and tracer, and is does very good for smoke rounds.  So yes?, sort of.  I think when you hear about WP being used though, it's more along the lines of a weapon that disperses a large amount of slower burning WP (I think they impregnate it into a material).  Or, I am sure, someone is using smoke rounds and they hype them as WP bombs.   For an incendiary round you are likely still looking for a blow it up effect with the additional make sure it's on fire and spread the fire, kind of effect.  I suspect the Ukrainians are seeing exploding kind.

Here is a WP round.  You can see the traces of still burning WP

In reply to 02Pilot :

You have given me a great deal of information regarding Ukraine. For that I thank you but here we have to disagree. 
  Germans tend to think first of Germany because it has been very good to Germans since WW2 yes it is a parliamentary system.  There is nothing inherently un Democratic about that system.
 It can be argued that such systems tend to reflect the will of the people more so than our"2" party system.  
     Germany offers many priorities  that strengthens their economy, such as focus on education that meets the needs of the country. Plus heavy spending on R&D.  
  The party's work together to strengthen Germany sometimes making strange bedfellows like the Green Party working with the conservatives to keep Nuclear power plants active until the issues with Ukraine are resolved.  
 

I think Germany has been a bit "idealistic" for a while now.  They let the US provide most of their defense, and let Russia sell them almost all of their gas for heating, so yes, it worked for them, as long as the other parties cooperated.  They have no need for nukes... plenty of gas coming from Russia.  I am not sure they are going to be able to fix their situation enough to get rid of the nukes, they can no longer afford to be that idealistic.

It's all very nice to say "no war", "no military" and "no nukes", but that only works, as I have said a number of times, up to the point the tanks roll across the boarder and you are freezing in winter as reality slaps you in the face.

US in WWII:  We will not fight other countries wars, just say no to war....

Japan:  SLAP!

Poland ready to send tanks without Germany’s consent, PM says

Poland is ready to go alone and send tanks to Ukraine even without Germany’s permission, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said on Wednesday.

Poland has pledged to send 14 Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. But, since the tanks are German-made, it needs Berlin’s approval, which Chancellor Olaf Scholz has yet to provide.

“Consent is a secondary issue here,” Morawiecki told Poland’s public radio broadcaster whilst returning from Davos, where he was attending the World Economic Forum.

https://www.politico.eu/article/poland-ready-tanks-without-germany-mateusz-morawiecki-consent-olaf-scholz/

In reply to aircooled :

That is one big can o'whoopass right there... 

In reply to frenchyd :

I never said it was undemocratic; on the contrary, I noted that its democratic process was one of the few similarities it has with the US.

Parties working together is a necessity created by the parliamentary system. If you don't have a majority (or at least a plurality), you do not get invited to form a government. With a range of parties (CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP, Greens, AfD, and a few others), the need for coalition governments is likely. There's nothing inherently "German" about it. You see the same thing in plenty of other parliamentary systems. When a majority single-party government can be formed, it is; when it can't, there's cooperation between two or more. The US doesn't require a majority in the legislature to form an executive, so we simply have no incentive to build coalitions. Or more precisely, no need at that stage of the process - we do see ad hoc coalitions built from time to time in Congress, though not recently.

Oh, another thing I saw.  The Russians are putting air defense on top of the some of the buildings in Moscow.  I am guessing they are worrying about the success of the Ukrainian drone attacks.  Interestingly enough what they are putting up there is a Pantsyr, one of which was rather famously taken out by a drone in Syria!

In reply to 02Pilot :

Well said.    My comments are based on the few Germans I personally know.   The remark about German First. Party a lower priority  is likely a reaction to their WW2 history. I do understand the requirement to form a government that leads to compromise. Something I feel Our government  is in desperate need of.

My reading of the constitution doesn't seem to preclude forming a parliamentary system.  To a degree it already exists. When Lincoln formed the Republican Party ( not exactly how it happened)  that was a 3rd party  plus  Bernie Sanders  isn't a Democrat or a Republican.  (Any other parties in the senate or congress?) 

aircooled said:

I think Germany has been a bit "idealistic" for a while now.  They let the US provide most of their defense, and let Russia sell them almost all of their gas for heating, so yes, it worked for them, as long as the other parties cooperated.  They have no need for nukes... plenty of gas coming from Russia.  I am not sure they are going to be able to fix their situation enough to get rid of the nukes, they can no longer afford to be that idealistic.

It's all very nice to say "no war", "no military" and "no nukes", but that only works, as I have said a number of times, up to the point the tanks roll across the boarder and you are freezing in winter as reality slaps you in the face.

US in WWII:  We will not fight other countries wars, just say no to war....

Japan:  SLAP!

You and I have a great deal of difference about the Cold War.  
     Germany was spending a great deal of money on military preparedness during that period.   It was well understood that the former Soviet Union would go right through Germany first in the event of WW3.    They bought our F104's  developed their own tanks etc.  

  There was a brief period Following their reacquisition  of East Germany where their spending on military preparedness didn't meet the 4%? Of GDP  they'd agreed on. Part of that was the so-called peace dividend  and the rest of it was needed to repair the neglect of East Germany.  
  But Postwar Germany has always been a strong supporter of NATO  and the American Military.  One of the reasons we have so many bases and training over there.  ( not to mention hospitals) 

Finally your comment about pre WW2 America  and military preparedness doesn't exactly line up with all of America's sentiment.   
  Yes absolutely with Henry Ford  and the America first movement. But not America completely 

In reply to frenchyd :

The US Constitution does preclude a parliamentary system wherein the legislative majority (or coalition) selects the members of the executive. Article II, Section 1 originally established a system of elections within the Congress as a whole (the framers were largely anti-party (or faction) and did not intend a party-based system, but were more focused on a state-based arrangement). This was quickly changed, however, by the 12th Amendment, which created the state-based system of electors we have today. Having multiple parties is fine - again, the framers wanted to avoid parties altogether - but does not impact the establishment of the two elected branches.

As to West German policy during the Cold War, it varied a lot. Initially, they were quite reluctant to rearm and had to be pushed by the US (who also had to overcome a lot of French resistance to the idea). Once they did, they committed to NATO and contributed significantly, but their presence was always undersized for the population and wealth of West Germany. Beginning in 1969 under Willy Brandt, Ostpolitik increasingly softened the diplomatic stance of West Germany toward the East, and reinforced the sense of distance between the military and the government that has existed to some degree throughout most of the post-war period. There are a number of good, if somewhat obscure, books on this, notably Marc Trachtenberg's A Constructed Peace: The Making of the European Settlement, 1945-1963, and James McAllister's No Exit: America and the German Problem, 1943-1954.

It's probably worth noting that I focused much of my graduate school research on early post-Cold War Transatlantic diplomacy, so I'm fairly familiar with the US-German relationship.

In reply to 02Pilot :

Well written.  I defer to your superior knowledge. 
  It's easy to sit on the outside and admire German  achievements and wish America could adapt some of the policies that achieved those. 
We put our pants on the same as most other countries do, yet All too often fail to achieve their successes.   Immigration for example. Didn't Germany accept over a million immigrants recently which for a country smaller than  the size of Texas with a population of 83 million. Must really be a strain.  Yet they are following America's history of using immigration to bootstrap the country. 

    

In reply to frenchyd :

Not sure what your getting at frenchy. Germany was reunified in 1990 and since then Germanys military spending has been below 2% and dropping until like 2018. The requirement for NATO set in 06 is 2%.

In reply to Opti :

It was reunified at a great cost to Germany both as a payment  ( I forget the amount but it was pretty massive ). and as repairs needed because of Soviet neglect.  
       With the "peace Dividend"  with the fall of the Soviet Union and subsequent reduction in threat.  Germany's military investment dipped.   

frenchyd said:

 

.....Finally your comment about pre WW2 America  and military preparedness doesn't exactly line up with all of America's sentiment.   
  Yes absolutely with Henry Ford  and the America first movement. But not America completely 

I am certainly not going to claim the entirety of the US population was against getting involved in WWII, just the general sentiment.  I also cannot say for certain, since I wasn't there, and there is no one left to ask, but the general consensus on the time was that the US, in general, really did not want to get involved.

Clues to that can be seen in state of the US military at the outbreak of WWII (in Europe).  It very much had a "why would be need a strong military, no one is going to invade us, and we ain't dying in someone else's mud again" kind of look.

There of course where those who where very willing (maybe even eager) to fight as evidenced by the AVG in China and the Eagle squadrons in England (both Americans fighting before the US entry). 

That is really always the way though, there will always be a certain percentage (cough... young males) who will be looking to get into a fight, or even war.  In the old days, it seemed to have a lot to do with adventure and glory... and of course not being aware (naive) of what happened to those who did the same in previous war.

In reply to frenchyd :

yes but it wasnt brief, it has been continuous.

In reply to 02Pilot :

*SNIP* The Abrams is hugely labor- and resource-intensive to operate and maintain, and Ukraine just doesn't have the means to do so. One of the major stumbling blocks is the turbine; the Leopard 2, being a diesel, is much easier to deal with.

********

What?  The USA makes something that is more complex than something Germany makes?  

Back to the Russia invades Ukraine thread.