Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 01-24-2023

Good news re: tanks

https://www.wsj.com/articles/poland-formally-requests-german-permission-to-send-tanks-to-ukraine-11674558492

Looks like Abrams and Leopards may be on the way.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 01-24-2023

(01-24-2023, 06:15 AM)81alum Wrote:  Goose mentioned how hollowed-out the German military currently is.  This NYT piece reflects that very well.  There is a major cultural shift beginning to happen there, but it will take a long time to rebuild.  Following is a gift link--hopefully it works.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/magazine/germany-military-army.html?unlocked_article_code=FQvam1esZDOSvysnNYUqTaKgc2WhBsr9vR9a4FLTYmzQt6ifxc4r-YaPfSQwp2BcQCLnbY4bJ7gDPo6uWCmhPkO1QOuPNq7hArtTAeIsrqOv9rzzMZwyd0Nj4gzKb6NjtWboOz4a-N3bL9iY454Tl1AyMj8PU3IizpJuzWm0IyUlOSJYYB7QFErIfd8mbzglnhE7h6npkFjawXo28q5xBeZ3RkNx0VZoEDp3GnFZDncWTucXNlR-TGNAzbGnPs264CGJXqg7JqwP03YKvgoHFhyrUu2xkveA2HAqCAEg2IY95lT7jE_H59puVqx7oDoU-BtSsrvBvUcu__pdAANl6g&smid=share-url

Thanks for this link. There is lots of interesting data in this article, but IMO the situation in Germany is very complex and most of the treatments in the US press get lots of it wrong. One example from the article: "Conscription in Germany, a relic of the Cold War, was suspended in 2011,". Conscription in Germany goes back to before the foundation of the German Empire. It was "the link between the Army and the people". It had a very distinct socialization function, even for people who didn't get called. While there were many things about it that were not "optimal" (from both a military and social point of view) in the late 20th and early 21st century, the function it performed was still critical. Replacing it with nothing was a big problem. The military predicted it would be thus, and they were correct.

It is unquestionably true that the reunification of Germany had a big impact on how the military was viewed by the people. We here in the US don't understand lots of it. A good source on what immediate effect that had is "Requiem for an Army" by Dale Herspring. The days of a "Don't scare the bear" policy that followed, along with the necessary steps of reunification (and the inevitable changes that followed) had significant effects on the German military that were not understood at the time (and few cared anyway). It is a very complex subject that is going to be a "problem" for a long time.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 01-24-2023

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status/1617935914730389504?s=20&t=3D0fYHatDfpxOtTdMRctBQ[/tweet]

Nice

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/vonderburchard/status/1617939980529332230?s=20&t=i-b6JiD9s140Rjs6SRtdlA[/tweet]

Even better. Seems like Ukraine is going to get a sizeable amount of tanks to go along with the 150+ new Bradley's and Marders.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/MarQs__/status/1617942925224316928?s=20&t=1_ADfQj4_SJKRpfUGqVedg[/tweet]

The 2A6 is a pretty new variant. I'm expecting that the hodgepodge of Leopards Ukraine gets will likely comprise several different variants given that it seems Ukraine is going to be receiving tanks from many different countries, the Ukrainian logistics officers are going to have their hands full.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1617946555398623232?s=20&t=hueoh2vkWD3cYlLqMUvTeQ[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 01-24-2023

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/johnismay/status/1617940862658576385?s=20&t=-2UUe6iWj83Pa9SffkEG_g[/tweet]

More important news than the tanks

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 01-24-2023

(01-24-2023, 10:27 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status/1617935914730389504?s=20&t=3D0fYHatDfpxOtTdMRctBQ

Nice

https://twitter.com/vonderburchard/status/1617939980529332230?s=20&t=i-b6JiD9s140Rjs6SRtdlA

Even better. Seems like Ukraine is going to get a sizeable amount of tanks to go along with the 150+ new Bradley's and Marders.

https://twitter.com/MarQs__/status/1617942925224316928?s=20&t=1_ADfQj4_SJKRpfUGqVedg

The 2A6 is a pretty new variant. I'm expecting that the hodgepodge of Leopards Ukraine gets will likely comprise several different variants given that it seems Ukraine is going to be receiving tanks from many different countries, the Ukrainian logistics officers are going to have their hands full.

https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1617946555398623232?s=20&t=hueoh2vkWD3cYlLqMUvTeQ

First of all, one has to say it is great this is happening. I for one hope we announce we are sending Abrams and then don't actually do it until at least June. Ukraine has enough on it's plate absorbing the Leopards. Let them train on the Abrams in Germany (or the US for that matter) before we send it. If that is what it takes to open the faucet, it's worth it. It should be noted that the USMC recently gave up it's 452 M1A1 tanks. These tanks were fully combat capable and ready to go. The US army uses M1A2s, so the older model isn't all that attractive to them. Ukraine OTOH can certainly use them, but only when they are trained to do so.

It is not just the logistics troops that will have a problem with the different versions. The tank crews themselves will too. The physical locations and operating instructions of equipment in the various variants are different. In a battle, knowing how to do things quickly is life and death. It is going to be hard enough for the Ukrainians to "master" one new tank. When their A6 is down for maintenance and you put the crew in an A4, bad things can easily happen. One area that is a real problem is communications gear, because that evolves rapidly. Different countries have different fits based on when the tank was last upgraded. There is going to have to be some real attention payed to how these tanks can talk to each other. If the tanks arrive in "company" size lots (14 tanks in US usage) they should be interchangeable at that level. That will help, but even in that case they need to talk to their other elements. All this will have to be worked out and practiced. Of course, one has to realize having these problems is better than having no tanks.

---

(01-24-2023, 01:38 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  https://twitter.com/johnismay/status/1617940862658576385?s=20&t=-2UUe6iWj83Pa9SffkEG_g

More important news than the tanks

You are absolutely right about that! My concern is the lead time on actually getting this going, but at least people are paying attention to the problem. The US military-industrial base isn't used to moving fast any more, and they need to do so in this case. This is 6 months later than it should have been IMO, as this problem was entirely foreseeable (and actually was pointed out by several sources). We are damn lucky this happened because of Ukraine and not because the US was involved in ground war someplace.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 01-24-2023

All's well that ends well?  

--A lot of equipment is "on the way."  Tanks, IFVs, GLSDB, JDAMs, Patriots.  I hope it all arrives soon enough to facilitate a spring offensive, or at least soon enough to prevent Russia from making any more substantial gains.  

--Erdogan's gripes about Sweden notwithstanding, I do think Norway and Sweden eventually will make it into NATO.  Of course we'd like to see that happen before the upcoming Turkish elections, but what difference does the timing make?  I am not even sure it's material whether or not the accession happens during this "hot" phase of the Russia/Ukraine war.  Norway and Sweden are providing support to Ukraine anyway.  Having those countries on board is really about the long-term, most importantly having a deterrent against Russian aggression in Scandinavia.  

I'm sure there are other examples.  It's ugly watching NATO countries make sausage, but I'm not sure the process will end up being anything more than a footnote.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Softball Fan - 01-24-2023

If the war extends into 2024 perhaps a NATO country could mix in a few F-15EXs with the standard F-15s to give Ukraine a little more fire power from the air.  Can carry 12 missiles.  Also can delivery hypersonic ARROWs.

https://www.boeing.com/defense/f-15ex/

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 01-24-2023

https://www.yahoo.com/news/not-moment-slow-down-u-200614706.html

The most interesting quote the article is that Gen. Milley suggested that

Quote:The equipment in the new U.S. aid package, combined with the previous one, includes capabilities equivalent to at least two combined arms maneuver brigades or six mechanized infantry battalions, 10 motorized infantry battalions, and four artillery battalions, Milley said.

That isn't quite correct, because a combined arms brigade needs to have at least a few tanks, but allowing for that it gives an idea of what we are providing. The force described isn't an Armored Brigade Combat Team but it is "heavier" than an Infantry Brigade Combat Team. It is a lot of firepower. Now for the training.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 01-24-2023

(01-24-2023, 02:26 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  All's well that ends well?  

--Erdogan's gripes about Sweden notwithstanding, I do think Norway and Sweden eventually will make it into NATO.  

You mean Finland and Sweden, right?  Norway is already in NATO:

https://www.norway.no/en/missions/nato/norway-nato/

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 01-24-2023

Oops, yes.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - gocard14 - 01-24-2023

(01-24-2023, 01:46 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(01-24-2023, 10:27 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status/1617935914730389504?s=20&t=3D0fYHatDfpxOtTdMRctBQ

Nice

https://twitter.com/vonderburchard/status/1617939980529332230?s=20&t=i-b6JiD9s140Rjs6SRtdlA

Even better. Seems like Ukraine is going to get a sizeable amount of tanks to go along with the 150+ new Bradley's and Marders.

https://twitter.com/MarQs__/status/1617942925224316928?s=20&t=1_ADfQj4_SJKRpfUGqVedg

The 2A6 is a pretty new variant. I'm expecting that the hodgepodge of Leopards Ukraine gets will likely comprise several different variants given that it seems Ukraine is going to be receiving tanks from many different countries, the Ukrainian logistics officers are going to have their hands full.

https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1617946555398623232?s=20&t=hueoh2vkWD3cYlLqMUvTeQ

First of all, one has to say it is great this is happening. I for one hope we announce we are sending Abrams and then don't actually do it until at least June. Ukraine has enough on it's plate absorbing the Leopards. Let them train on the Abrams in Germany (or the US for that matter) before we send it. If that is what it takes to open the faucet, it's worth it. It should be noted that the USMC recently gave up it's 452 M1A1 tanks. These tanks were fully combat capable and ready to go. The US army uses M1A2s, so the older model isn't all that attractive to them. Ukraine OTOH can certainly use them, but only when they are trained to do so.

It is not just the logistics troops that will have a problem with the different versions. The tank crews themselves will too. The physical locations and operating instructions of equipment in the various variants are different. In a battle, knowing how to do things quickly is life and death. It is going to be hard enough for the Ukrainians to "master" one new tank. When their A6 is down for maintenance and you put the crew in an A4, bad things can easily happen. One area that is a real problem is communications gear, because that evolves rapidly. Different countries have different fits based on when the tank was last upgraded. There is going to have to be some real attention payed to how these tanks can talk to each other. If the tanks arrive in "company" size lots (14 tanks in US usage) they should be interchangeable at that level. That will help, but even in that case they need to talk to their other elements. All this will have to be worked out and practiced. Of course, one has to realize having these problems is better than having no tanks.

---

(01-24-2023, 01:38 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  https://twitter.com/johnismay/status/1617940862658576385?s=20&t=-2UUe6iWj83Pa9SffkEG_g

More important news than the tanks

You are absolutely right about that! My concern is the lead time on actually getting this going, but at least people are paying attention to the problem. The US military-industrial base isn't used to moving fast any more, and they need to do so in this case. This is 6 months later than it should have been IMO, as this problem was entirely foreseeable (and actually was pointed out by several sources). We are damn lucky this happened because of Ukraine and not because the US was involved in ground war someplace.

Sounds like you get your wish re:taking their time with the Abrams. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/01/24/abrams-leopard-tanks-ukraine/

The relevant info is that they are “ordering them from manufacturers “ and not using “existing US stocks”. I’m not 100% what that means since my impression is we were not producing new Abrams hulls, just upgrading existing ones, but sounds like it will be a while before tanks are shipped. Furthermore they emphasize the only reason we announce it now is to get the Germans moving on the Leopards. I also wonder how much of the repair and service aspects can be set up in Poland, who require this anyways for their upcoming M1 shipments.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 01-25-2023

(01-24-2023, 11:44 PM)gocard14 Wrote:  Sounds like you get your wish re:taking their time with the Abrams. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/01/24/abrams-leopard-tanks-ukraine/

The relevant info is that they are “ordering them from manufacturers “ and not using “existing US stocks”. I’m not 100% what that means since my impression is we were not producing new Abrams hulls, just upgrading existing ones, but sounds like it will be a while before tanks are shipped. Furthermore they emphasize the only reason we announce it now is to get the Germans moving on the Leopards. I also wonder how much of the repair and service aspects can be set up in Poland, who require this anyways for their upcoming M1 shipments.

It looks to me that (as you suggest) we just announced this to give cover to the Germans. Anything that we "order from the manufacturers" is year(s) away. Presumably the Polish order will be in front of the Ukrainian one and the Poles are real dissatisfied with their delivery lead time. If we wanted these tanks to be there anytime soon we do have plenty of perfectly good M1A1s we could send tomorrow. We have downsized enough we probably have M1A2s we could send, although I don't know that for certain. The US has said that we have to look at what Ukraine needs after they win this war. Perhaps this order (if it actually happens) will be part of that. It certainly isn't going to help Ukraine anytime soon. The other 6 NASAMS will hopefully arrive before then.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - fullmetal - 01-25-2023

A talking head on NPR opined that the logistics and training lead times required mean that Ukraine won't be able to deploy the Abrams in time for a spring offensive, which makes sense.  Does the same apply to the Leopards, or are those more familiar to the AFU?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 01-25-2023

We keep hearing about Ukraine’s anticipated springtime offensive. Obviously, the sooner Ukraine retakes it’s territory, the better. But from a tactical perspective, is there any reason it’s better for Ukraine to attack in April than say July?  Is it better tactics, on balance, to take the fight to Russia at a time and place of Ukraine’s choosing? Or could Ukraine do better, from a tactical perspective, by laying in wait for Russia’s anticipated offensive with the newly mobilized troops?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Hurlburt88 - 01-25-2023

I see advantages in "laying in wait" for a Russian offensive where significant casualties can be inflicted, and then pounce when a weakness reveals itself.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 01-25-2023

(01-25-2023, 01:38 PM)fullmetal Wrote:  A talking head on NPR opined that the logistics and training lead times required mean that Ukraine won't be able to deploy the Abrams in time for a spring offensive, which makes sense.  Does the same apply to the Leopards, or are those more familiar to the AFU?

(01-25-2023, 02:40 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  We keep hearing about Ukraine’s anticipated springtime offensive. Obviously, the sooner Ukraine retakes it’s territory, the better. But from a tactical perspective, is there any reason it’s better for Ukraine to attack in April than say July?  Is it better tactics, on balance, to take the fight to Russia at a time and place of Ukraine’s choosing? Or could Ukraine do better, from a tactical perspective, by laying in wait for Russia’s anticipated offensive with the newly mobilized troops?

It is essentially impossible for Ukraine to effectively use the tanks/IFVs it will be getting for a "spring" offensive. We aren't even really sure when they will be getting some of them and how many. That doesn't mean there won't be an offensive, but it does mean Ukraine can't rely on these new capabilities to execute it.
 
Normally, one prefers to choose when and where to fight and make your opponent respond to your actions. This means an attack/offensive. Your opponent is trying to do the same. If by some good fortune your opponent chooses a place and time that suits you better than any offensive move does, fighting a defensive battle can be the better choice. Gettysburg comes to mind.

The problem in Ukraine is that these battles can become months long artillery duels where masses of untrained Russian infantry forces the Ukrainians to defend in a way that costs Ukraine a lot of casualties too. In the end, Russia prevails. Ukraine can only take so much of this. That is one reason Ukraine wants the tanks, so that they can start an aggressive battle and have a chance of winning it. Ukraine is running out of tank ammunition for it's own T-72s, so eventually they can't be used. Ukraine wants a faster-moving aggressive war, just like the West does. They have to be trained well enough to execute it however, and for sure they aren't yet. Russia OTOH is undoubtedly planning to increase it's supply of cannon fodder and Ukraine needs to weather this attempt.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 01-25-2023

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-the-2a4-2a5-2a6-and-2a7-variants-of-the-Leopard-2

The Norwegians are talking about 2A4s. Germany is sending 2A6. Spain will be sending 2A4s at some point. Poland has 2A4s, 2A5s, and a unique 2PL version. The Dutch will be providing something, probably 2A6 but maybe 2A7 (leased back from Germany). The known differences from the above article:

Quote:2A4 -> 2A5: Refinement of the armor composites, steel cowling over turret for better protection, addition of spall liners, the commander’s sight was moved and given thermal imaging, the hatches were made stronger, and the turret controls were changed to all electric.

2A5 -> 2A6: Gun changed to the 120mm L55 from the 120mm L44, with later modifications (2A6M) adding additional protection on the belly against mines.

2A6 -> 2A7: Better climate control, a new APU, new fire control systems, upgraded networks, new intercom system, new fire suppression systems, and mountings on the hull for external armor packages.

The absence of spall liners in the 2A4 is a big negative for the crew. The tank may survive the hit but the crew may not because of spalled metal killing them. The commanders sight wasn't just moved and given thermal capability, it was made equivalent to the gunner's sight. It is a very different beast than the one in the 2A4 and has much greater utility. This is a big training issue as the commander of an A4 is much more likely to be operating with his head out of the tank than the A5 or later. The L55 has higher muzzle velocity and shoots farther. The software makes that transparent to the gunner but it can't increase the range of the L44 gun. Probably not a big deal. The all electric turret obviously uses different spare parts than the A4. Some differences in performance as well, but probably not critical.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 01-25-2023

(01-25-2023, 04:39 PM)Goose Wrote:  It is essentially impossible for Ukraine to effectively use the tanks/IFVs it will be getting for a "spring" offensive. We aren't even really sure when they will be getting some of them and how many. That doesn't mean there won't be an offensive, but it does mean Ukraine can't rely on these new capabilities to execute it.

We've been hearing a lot about Ukraine getting more equipment.  NASAMs, JDAMs, Patriots, GLSDBs, IFVs, Strykers, etc.  Is Ukraine likely to be trained up enough to use any of this equipment to defend against the mobilization fueled Russian offensive that we anticipate is coming?  Or are we really looking at summer or early fall before we see much of the new equipment in battle?  Thanks again for your expert input.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 01-25-2023

(01-25-2023, 06:09 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  We've been hearing a lot about Ukraine getting more equipment.  NASAMs, JDAMs, Patriots, GLSDBs, IFVs, Strykers, etc.  Is Ukraine likely to be trained up enough to use any of this equipment to defend against the mobilization fueled Russian offensive that we anticipate is coming?  Or are we really looking at summer or early fall before we see much of the new equipment in battle?  Thanks again for your expert input.

I am far from an expert, but IMO the "offensive" weapons like tanks, IFVs, and Strykers require a more than a bit of training to use. Some of that is going on now in Grafenwöhr, but that is 500 troops. A Brigade Combat Team, which is about what they have equipment for (confirmed by people other than myself) requires about 10 times that. Granted, they don't all have to be "fully" trained but I don't see a way to get such a unit anywhere close to ready in less than 6 months. Add to that we don't even really know exactly when they will get what.

Most importantly, this kind of formation is more useful for an attack following a local breakthrough. It can be used in defense but only against an opponent who is trying to move fast as a result of his own breakthrough. It is not optimized to attack dug in infantry in reinforced concrete shelters. It is designed to flank and cut off such defenses and then wreaking havoc in the rear areas. Russia's human wave attacks supported by a deluge of artillery are not the optimal opponent for this kind of force. Get such a force on the rear of such a Russian attack and then you are in business. They can roll up the artillery and then the Russian infantry attacking in the open is doomed. Just don't expect your armored striking force to shatter fortified zones. They can do it, but it is a waste.

From what I have heard, the GLSDBs are effectively many months away at best. They are also a little small for many tasks. I am much more hopeful for the JDAMs, as they are relatively easy to use and "simple" weapons that can do a lot of damage. The fortifications the Russians have been building, particularly in the Kherson Oblast and Crimea are perfect objectives for these weapons. Whether Ukraine has the air force remaining that can deliver them with an acceptable rate of attrition is the question.

The Patriots are going to help with the cruise missile attacks, particularly the high altitude and high speed KH-22s. They are also potentially good against Iskander (not -k) missiles, although Russia hasn't been using these much. However, they are also prisoners of geometry. Low altitude missiles (Kalibr, KH-101 at low altitude) that are not in their radar footprint because of the radar horizon can't be attacked. The Patriot could attack Russian strategic bombers over Belarus but I doubt they will be allowed to do that. NASAMS have already proven their worth, but they also have known limitations.

We don't know what the Russians can actually do. I think we have to trust that Ukraine can make a plan to stop any Russian "human wave" attack while preparing a strategic offensive that will basically win the war. My pet object is Crimea and I think the Russians see that as a probable objective. It is good tank country in most areas. Ukraine may indeed try to win the battle in the Donbas, and I think that is obviously where Russia prefers to fight. If it were me, I would put pressure on Russia in Donbas only in so far as it doesn't prevent development of the necessary striking force in the South. Ukraine is also aware Kiev is real close to hostile territory and that Russia might try a quick lunge to take it. This isn't an easy situation and much depends on what Russia can actually dredge up for troops. Ukraine has done a lot to interdict Russian supply lines. They may need to do much more if Russia can indeed get another 500,000 troops in the near term, trained or not. ATACMS may become necessary to do this, whether we like it or not. If OTOH Russia can't really generate much more combat power than they now have, Ukraine should be able to prevail with what we are supplying.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - gocard14 - 01-25-2023

Sounds like part of the reason for the time gap rather then just sending over the M1s we have in storage or from the marines is the need to spec them with export variant armor, and not depleted uranium armor/ceramics which are still considered classified. 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/m1-abrams-tanks-in-u-s-inventory-have-armor-too-secret-to-send-to-ukraine

I have trouble believing that DU armor that has been around for 20-30 years is a national security level secret, but will admit my ignorance on the matter.

---