Noddaz said: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.
As the owner of two BMWs, I'm as shocked as you are.
In reply to aircooled :
On the subject of US entry into the war, there are a lot of different layers: public sentiment, government policy (the White House and especially the State Department), opposition within the government to that policy (in Congress), and military preparations. I'm not going to go too deep, but here's a starting point:
Note that the whole Why We Fight series is propaganda. It is fairly selective with its facts (no mention of the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement, for example, or how the Japanese viewed US sanctions) and designed for a specific purpose. But it does include some good information from Gallup polls taken during the period. Start around 18:50 if you want to skip to the timeline and polling data.
Opti said:In reply to frenchyd :
yes but it wasnt brief, it has been continuous.
Germany spent 2 trillion Euro's on reunification. At the time Germany's population was 72 million. 2 trillion euro's . That is massive! The whole purpose of NATO was to prevent the Soviet Union from Attacking.
Guess what, We won! The Soviet Union broke up and with it the justification of NATO NATO countries took the peace dividend and focus on their own issues like coming up with 2 Trillion dollars. NATO version 2 is now going to defeat Russia. Germany 's contribution is giving up 55% of their source of natural Gas and 42% of their oil For an Industrial country like Germany that is a major sacrifice.
If you look at NATO Now, they have Russia in Checkmate. Finland and Sweden cut off Russian access the the Baltic, and Sweden has the world's quietest submarines. Plus fantastic acoustic coverage of Russia's access to both the Baltic and North Sea. Russia's main ports.
St. Petersburg is only 60? Miles from Finland's border. And that is Russia's 2 nd biggest city.
Then taking back Chriamea cuts off Russia's access to the Black Sea. From their port in Sevastopol.
Yes Russia still has access through the Pacific but darn few People on that side of Russia. ( and most of those ports are heavily iced over).
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.
I don't listen to Zeihan - I find him grating - but the German left has been talking about disarmament since 1945. It has never been realistic, and its obligations under NATO would have made it impossible in any case. With the SPD in charge of the current coalition government, there were always going to be calls for it; the mistake was putting one of the loonies in charge of the defense ministry, which was most certainly part of a power-sharing deal that made political sense in peacetime, but none whatsoever with any sort of military threat in the offing.
I don't believe the difficulty is in maintaining the Abrams turbine engines. Not much secret about those. Both Germany and Poland have plenty of turbines to maintain. But rather the weapon systems themselves. I can't begin to calculate the reactive speed it takes to hold the weapon on target over the rough terrain Tanks travel as a matter of course. In fact is it reactive or does it anticipate terrain?
Then there is the whole matter of reactive armor details. I'm sure Russia would love to have one to copy. Don't forget that is how Russia the nuclear bomb. And many other America inventions.
In reply to frenchyd :
The thing with to clone cutting edge wartechnology is that the technology requires current Micro-Chip technology. Even if you gave them the Cadence files for a chip design, it would be no more effective than giving them a porn movie and telling them to make a child; they would have no access to the foundries that make the wafers of chips and the essential QC and packaging required to deliver this technology. We all take our cell phones for granted, but the reality is that they verge on the miraculous. Russia dropped out of the IC technology race about 20 years ago, and it is not something that they (or china) has been able to do on their own despite huge efforts being made already.
In reply to NOHOME :
Thanks , I get wound up in the details and miss the obvious
Lots of countries turning the screws on Germany to approve the Leopard 2 deal. Germany is being very cagey about this, so much so that I have to wonder 1) what they're holding out for in return, and/or 2) how many people in the German government Putin has compromising pictures of. The Germans clearly want something that they're not being offered; with the Abrams off the table, I'm guessing they're afraid of being on the hook for a lot of logistical support for the Leopards, and they probably want the US (and others, but the US would obviously be the primary donor) to kick in a bunch of money to cover some of it. I can't come up with anything else that makes sense.
I wonder if the US should toss a dozen early Abrams to Ukraine, just to call Germany's bluff. It's not like we're going to miss them, and they could just sit around Lviv or Kyiv as emergency backups if Ukraine doesn't have the ability to support them in the field for an extended period of time.
I imagine that Germany asking the US to provide Abrams is more a case of everyone turning the wick up to the same level at the same time.
Most NATO countries started by donating leftover equipment to Ukraine that was relatively low tech and commitment. As the war goes on, this has been escalating to the point where leading edge tech is being considered; this IS and escalation, and I expect that Germany ( and the rest of NATO) just wants to make sure that the US in in lockstep with the messaging.
Much as putin sounds silly saying that this is not a war, it is just as silly to believe that NATO is not directly at war with russia. But illusions must be maintained.
In reply to NOHOME :
Good point. I think the line in the sand is actual NATO FORCES on Russian soil. ( or what Putin's warped mind considers Russia. )
The good news is selling NATO forces Our more modern ( and better) military hardware is good for America's economy. Heck if we can no longer sell economy Sedans to the rest of the world. We can sell 'em Tanks and Planes. Then they can sell their old Tanks and Planes to African and South American dictators to use on their own population or neighbors. See, instead of global recession, we'll avoid it fighting wars ( sarcasm )
In reply to 02Pilot :
How many Russian Tanks are left? I mean usable ones? How many does the Ukraine have sitting around that Russian troops just walked away from? Do we really need next Gen tanks anymore to fight?
Seems like Tanks are becoming like Battleships of WW2. Just for information there were darn few Battleships Vs Battleship conflicts during WW2. Most battleships were sunk by planes, submarines, or smaller warships
NOHOME said:In reply to frenchyd :
The thing with to clone cutting edge wartechnology is that the technology requires current Micro-Chip technology. Even if you gave them the Cadence files for a chip design, it would be no more effective than giving them a porn movie and telling them to make a child; they would have no access to the foundries that make the wafers of chips and the essential QC and packaging required to deliver this technology. We all take our cell phones for granted, but the reality is that they verge on the miraculous. Russia dropped out of the IC technology race about 20 years ago, and it is not something that they (or china) has been able to do on their own despite huge efforts being made already.
What Russia and China lack is real faith in their people. If instead of directing from the top down, give people the education , training, and incentive and they will figure it out for themselves.
Russia and to a smaller degree China are going through a brain drain where the best and brightest go where the rewards are the best and brightest.
With all this talk about sending hi tech tank (German, US, whatever) what does Russia have to blow them up much like Ukraine did to Russian tanks?
In reply to frenchyd :
I don't have numbers on tanks for either side, but I suspect the total numbers are not reflective of the actual in-service numbers. Back in the Soviet days, I recall reading that they didn't have nearly the recovery and support infrastructure for their armor that the West did - the assumed logic was that 1) they were going to keep advancing, not stopping to fix stuff, and 2) they had more than enough to do just that. I wouldn't be surprised if the Russians have pretty low ready rates for the stuff they've got deployed. I imagine the Ukrainians have been getting a crash course from Western advisors, but I don't know how much existing infrastructure they have for depot-level work. While I'm sure they've developed some ad hoc stuff since this started, it's probably not enough. I have to imagine this is a factor in deciding what Western equipment gets sent over.
Noddaz said:With all this talk about sending hi tech tank (German, US, whatever) what does Russia have to blow them up much like Ukraine did to Russian tanks?
tactics. Much of what Ukraine did was because the russians were using them badly. Like putting them down a relatively narrow path without support so they ran out of fuel and had little local help. Or running them without any infantry support to lower the odds of an infantry unit being able to decimate the tanks.
One really key battle was for a large airstrip north of Kiev, where the russians had it for a little while, but the counter attack was successful- but had the russians been able to keep it, they would have been able to support the attack with both supplies and infantry. And once they didn't call off the armored thrust, pretty much all of those resources were stuck out and were easy targets.
While many see the tank as dead, I've seen many YT articles pointing out that they are not.
The point of moving and donating modern tanks and armor is just that- modern firepower, optics, integration with drone technologies... modern tanks now can do so much absurd E36 M3 compared to even new stuff in the 80s, and Ukraine has stated repeatedly that they need heavy armor and advanced artillery to break fortifications.
frenchyd said:In reply to 02Pilot :
How many Russian Tanks are left? I mean usable ones? How many does the Ukraine have sitting around that Russian troops just walked away from? Do we really need next Gen tanks anymore to fight?
Seems like Tanks are becoming like Battleships of WW2. Just for information there were darn few Battleships Vs Battleship conflicts during WW2. Most battleships were sunk by planes, submarines, or smaller warships
"Military analysts" have been claiming the tank has been dead since world war 1. Even with modern drone technologies and artillery that can strike a target within feet of the point aimed at, fact is that nothing beats having 50 tons of steel and smoothbore cannon that can hit something right now moving 50kph that barbed wire can't slow.
As for usable... not even Russia knows. Many tanks the Uke's are capturing are being stripped for spares and reconditioning instead of having it turned around for service, both because of maintenance issues (would you trust ANYTHING the Russians have at this point?) but also because of practicality (Still using Russian radios/munitions, 80s outdated technology at best, ect.). There's also the fact that older tanks have physical issues too, in that their old armor layout may have modern shell trap problems that make them a poor option- I think the T-55 that Russia is now activating have that problem around the cupola.
Word now is that Russians may FINALLY take Bakhmut, but it'll be Pyrrhic at best for the Russians considering the sheer amount of men, material and ammunition they've expended over the past 9 months just to make the attempt over a region with minimal strategic gain. If they don't, I'm not sure what will really change other than going back to being the black hole of military power and capacity for the Rashists.
GIRTHQUAKE said:Word now is that Russians may FINALLY take Bakhmut, but it'll be Pyrrhic at best for the Russians considering the sheer amount of men, material and ammunition they've expended over the past 9 months just to make the attempt over a region with minimal strategic gain. If they don't, I'm not sure what will really change other than going back to being the black hole of military power and capacity for the Rashists.
Would not surprise me. I've read the Ukrainians are taking heavy losses trying to hold it. Even if they have a 2-1 or 3-1 casualty ratio against the Russians, it may be best to abandon it. As I understand, even though it may not be too critical to hold it, it is a very defensible location, so taking it back may have to rely on bypassing it and encircling it later to cut it off and hope for a Russian collapse, rather than a frontal attack.
Edit: I wonder if attempting to hold it may be related to uncertainty over what kind of armor NATO countries are going to provide. From a map, it looks like there is enough open ground past Bakhmut that unsupported infantry may have a hard time holding on to it, unless the Russians revert to their early war strategy of driving until they break down, get stuck, or run out of fuel.
02Pilot said:In reply to frenchyd :
I don't have numbers on tanks for either side, but I suspect the total numbers are not reflective of the actual in-service numbers. Back in the Soviet days, I recall reading that they didn't have nearly the recovery and support infrastructure for their armor that the West did - the assumed logic was that 1) they were going to keep advancing, not stopping to fix stuff, and 2) they had more than enough to do just that. I wouldn't be surprised if the Russians have pretty low ready rates for the stuff they've got deployed. I imagine the Ukrainians have been getting a crash course from Western advisors, but I don't know how much existing infrastructure they have for depot-level work. While I'm sure they've developed some ad hoc stuff since this started, it's probably not enough. I have to imagine this is a factor in deciding what Western equipment gets sent over.
You said it better than I did. We are sitting back and considering what is really needed. While I'm sure Ukraine would happily take a Battleship. Oops tank from us . The real question is do they need it?
If Russia keeps using the tanks the way they have the answer is no!!!
There is a finite appetite in the west for sending money and equipment. We all have our own needs. Plus once the war is over I'm sure Ukraine will ask for help rebuilding. It would be nice if we had a version of the Marshall plan available to really Jab Russia in the eye.
eastsideTim said:GIRTHQUAKE said:Word now is that Russians may FINALLY take Bakhmut, but it'll be Pyrrhic at best for the Russians considering the sheer amount of men, material and ammunition they've expended over the past 9 months just to make the attempt over a region with minimal strategic gain. If they don't, I'm not sure what will really change other than going back to being the black hole of military power and capacity for the Rashists.
Would not surprise me. I've read the Ukrainians are taking heavy losses trying to hold it. Even if they have a 2-1 or 3-1 casualty ratio against the Russians, it may be best to abandon it. As I understand, even though it may not be too critical to hold it, it is a very defensible location, so taking it back may have to rely on bypassing it and encircling it later to cut it off and hope for a Russian collapse, rather than a frontal attack.
Edit: I wonder if attempting to hold it may be related to uncertainty over what kind of armor NATO countries are going to provide. From a map, it looks like there is enough open ground past Bakhmut that unsupported infantry may have a hard time holding on to it, unless the Russians revert to their early war strategy of driving until they break down, get stuck, or run out of fuel.
I think what Poland and even Germany would like is we agree to give (sell?) them one of our Abrams tanks for every Tank they send over.
GIRTHQUAKE said:...Word now is that Russians may FINALLY take Bakhmut, but it'll be Pyrrhic at best for the Russians considering the sheer amount of men, material and ammunition they've expended over the past 9 months just to make the attempt over a region with minimal strategic gain. If they don't, I'm not sure what will really change other than going back to being the black hole of military power and capacity for the Rashists.
It will be interesting to see the reality of the situation. Some evidence that the Russians (Wagner) took heavy loses to get it (as in large numbers of bodies laying in fields). Much of that I am sure where Mobilized Cannonfodder, but they certainly took some damage to the Wagner regulars.
It all seems to be primarily to show that "we are doing something" and a bragging point for Wagner. They are still pushing, but I suspect the Ukrainians are using that area as a meat grinder.
Still curiously (suspiciously) quiet on the Ukrainian offensive front. I am starting to wonder all the movements to make it look like Russia will attack from the north, and the Ukrainians seemingly very worried about that is a bit of a ruse to make it look like the Ukrainians cannot go on offensive because they need to reinforce the north... until...
... or has it truly become this static. I really don't think so though. If the Russians are truly running as low on artillery ammo as suspected, it will be much harder for them to resist a push.
I have to say, it's still pretty amazing there has not been a general collapse of the Russian military. Maybe it's just holding on by a thread? (some indication for example of Russian soldiers committing suicide)
Update: More indications of conflicts and people scrambling for power in the Russian forces:
frenchyd said:I think what Poland and even Germany would like is we agree to give (sell?) them one of our Abrams tanks for every Tank they send over.
I suspect Germany would rather have their own next-gen Panther tank than American Abrams.
Mixing in M1's with Leopards would create unnecessary logistics and support issues. They are pretty equivalent tanks apparently.
Which brings up the logistics and support nightmare that Ukraine has likely become with a wide variety of vehicles / weapons they keep getting.
Found this quote, which of course is very insightful:
“War is an economy. It’s money. And if you have a drone for $3,000 and a grenade for $200, and you destroy a tank that costs $3 million, it’s very interesting.”
— Graf, a Ukrainian soldier in charge of a team developing drone-dropped grenades to kill Russian tanks.
In reply to aircooled :
Any insight on the relative collapse of the russian economy on their ability to make weapons?
Just saw a report that suggests that the russian aviation industry is in a big world of hurt- that they really don't have the ability to make planes at the rate they need them, let alone make cutting edge ones. While the article claimed this wasn't about corruption, I would say it was- but a few decades ago. Many current oligarchs were at the top of the management chain for most industry- so they assumed ownership. And instead of reinvesting money, they kept it.
You'll need to log in to post.
