In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
It certainly looks like we are on the brink of war.
And about tanks in general, if you paid attention to Russia's efforts at the beginning of their invasion. They lost a lot of tanks. IMO, the armored tank is an obsolete weapon in modern warfare.
If they were obsolete, they would have been phased out long ago. Sometimes it's not the weapon being employed in a battle but "how" it's being employed.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Don, I hope your still following this thread as I do think highly of your thoughts and analysis. Portugal has just announced that they would supply Leopard 1 tanks as had Germany and possibly Belgium. All reside in storage; none are operational and would require refurbishment which could take upwards of a year plus. As this weapons platform has been out of production for decades it safe to assume a number of them will have to be cannibalized for parts just to make whatever number being supplied operational. An even larger number will have to be parted out to provide additional logistical support. So, the time required to make this work is at least a year or more thereby extending the conflict.
The Abrams tanks that were pledged all have to be new production because of the armor issue and could take a least 1-2 years to deliver once production has started at some point in the future. Again, how much longer does this extend the conflict? How long before the United States has it's "Gulf of Tonkin" incident" and the country is dragged into another conflict of unknown duration and with the most dire of consequences seeing that 3 of the current participants that are directly or indirectly involved are nuclear armed. France will make it 4 if they act on providing weapons and support.
The Baltic states have been pushing hard to "cross the red line" and while that's understandable considering their history with Russia, still is quite dangerous. None of the Baltic State have an armed force capable of defending their own territory from a Russian onslaught let alone engage in offensive operations without an article 5 declaration. Heck none of their respective Air Force's, combined, have a single combat aircraft. And just how many Nato states are really willing to go to the "dance", how many could we rely on. Turkey boasts the largest armed force in the alliance, but Turkey seems to be, and act, more foe than friend and has for decades been at loggerheads with Greece, another Nato member, over Cyprus and the Aegean Sea. And they have been cozying up to the Russians for years so who knows just how reliable they would actually be. Should they even be allowed to stay within the Alliance. Problematic to say the least since there's a convoluted method for acceptance but none at all when it comes to expulsions. Weird huh?
We won't supply F-16 fighters because we say it could be a "provocative escalation", but Nato members can send them and somehow, it's not a "provocative escalation". Poland has already agreed to supply them, and the Dutch are considering it. How long to deliver them, how long to train crews and maintenance personnel, what about the logistics, how many years does this extend the conflict? None of these aircraft are new builds, many are decades old with thousands of hours on the airframes. How long can they be utilized before they themselves need to be replaced and what could be viewed as an effective replacement but not a potentially "provocative escalation"? Of those fighters' jets, how many themselves require refurbishment, at what level can this work be done? If it's depot level, then it could take months if not years to complete depending on the airframes condition, and at what cost, who's paying?
The Abrams issue is interesting in that the number to be provided, 31, is probably the minimum needed just to set up a training establishment to train tank crews and maintenance personnel. Unless that's already being done somewhere in Nato territory. Even still the number involved would effectively equip 2 armored companies and that would have little to no effect on the tactical picture. You would need hundreds, in fact several hundred, to have any effect and since there's only one production line in this country which has a massive backlog of orders and again, we are looking at years of conflict. Talk about a catch 22 scenario.
That seems to be what the plan was from the start, your thought?
IMO, the delay in getting first line NATO tanks into the theater involves the removal of highly sensitive equipment from the tanks so those that will w inevitably fall into Russian hands do not show them our actual capabilities.
Lima has not built a new Abrams from the ground up for decades, so the ‘new builds’ will be refurbished tanks set up to a lower standard than what the US Army receives. From that standpoint, the delay makes sense. By extension, the Leopards and Challengers will be configured in the same manner. The same may also be true for F-16s and/or other aircraft.
The primary goal today would then be a signal to Russia that we are in this for the long haul. Putin is then faced with deciding whether he can win an ongoing war of attrition, go for broke in the next 6 months, or make some effort to save face with a negotiated settlement. Anyone who thinks they can answer that for him is just guessing.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
So you don't think we'll have a "gulf of Tonkin" incident that would compel our direct involvement?
No question that this is currently a war of attrition. That said, it only involves, at the moment, the Ukrainians and the Russians while everyone else is dancing on the fringes. Just not too sure how long that can play out. Russia has a long history when it comes to its blatant disregard to casualties or the massive losses of equipment.
I can understand the time lag to a point but really wonder if it's just a tactic to drag the conflict out. It seems odd that announcements regarding equipment being supplied, current condition, time to repair/refurbish are being made in the open knowing the Russians are listening and reading. Declaring the intent to drag this out for as long as it takes may not only antagonize them, but they may also simply decide not to play that game and up the ante. Then what??? Call or raise.
I don’t see a Gulf of Tonkin type incident, as I think (hope) that after the disaster that was the invasion of Iraq, the American psyche will resist a manufactured or hyped reason to enter another war.
The greater probability is that Russia will attack supply lines within the border of a NATO country, leaving the west with a real conundrum. Do we honor a commitment to go to war to protect the sovereign territory of a NATO partner when the attack is specifically targeted to a military asset with a known and obvious destination? If Putin takes out a train carrying Leopard tanks just inside Romania or Slovakia e route to Ukraine, does NATO declare war on Russia?
Perhaps more importantly, should it?
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
I believe an attack on supply lines in a country that is a part of NATO carrying military equipment to Ukraine would draw us in, especially if any Americans were killed. One only has to look back on history. The sinking of the Lusitania is actually what brought about us interning WW1, there were 130 I believe Americans killed. It brought about anti German sentiment that later brought us in to the war.
If Putin did decide to try and attack supply lines. I’m sure he would try and do it covertly, if not, and he used his military, I believe that would test NATOs resolve. Things could get bad real quick.
Food for thought no doubt. I fear that the longer this conflict is dragged out the greater the risk of escalation to the point of outright war. As a 20 yr. vet I look at this conflict, the way it's played out to date, the rhetoric from all parties and something just doesn't sit right. I smell a rat.
The sinking of the Lusitania shifted support on the war towards the allies and it and the hyping of the Zimmerman telegram that galvanized the US to declare war. The main reason, which has an application here, is that Wilson wanted to bring peace to the world and establish what we now think of as a one world government.
Putin is a disrupter who cannot be brought into the fold. He needs to be resisted to the point of either his committing of National suicide or forceable removal. Ukraine is the unlucky field upon which this is taking place.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
I don't know Don, maybe I've burned out too many brain cells as I'm not seeing the linkage here. Public opinion was squarely on the side of Ukraine from the very start, nothing else would have been needed. It's almost to the level of mounting a crusade against the Russians, but one where we weren't "directly" involved (wink wink). What concerns me are the numbers, the ever-increasing timelines and the probable chance of a misstep.
If your assumption is correct, that the Biden Administration basically green lighted a limited Russian incursion then one can also make the assumption that it was a designed trap to get a conflict going in the first place as the reported numbers in the initial assault force made absolutely no sense from a tactical perspective let alone a strategic one. It would also explain the slobbering lovefest for Zelensky, the resulting hatred for Putin and the ultimate goal of regime change in Moscow.
I do not think Biden green lighted it on purpose. I believe that during a meeting with his national security team, the discussion was that we would adopt a graduated approach to Russian aggression, and Biden did not understand that the graduated response was not for public consumption and stupidly blurted it out. The day he said it I turned to my wife and said 'That idiot just told Putin that it was OK to invade Ukraine'.
That said, while public support has been strongly with Ukraine from the start, I don't think there was anyone who thought the Russian advance would have been as poorly executed as it was, and most believed that Ukraine was going to cease to exist as a sovereign nation within months if not weeks. Once we saw that the Russian juggernaut was somewhat of a paper tiger, the policy shifted to containment and feeding enough weaponry to stop any further advance. Now that Ukraine has shown the ability to advance with the help of western intel and military machinery and weapons, the policy has again shifted with us now committing to offensive weaponry so that Ukraine may be in a position to regain territory.
The stopping of the initial invasion was an international embarrassment for Putin. The long running stalemate was more of an embarrassment, and the expulsion of Russian troops will be an embarrassment that will likely end his Presidency. The policy of the US and our allies as influenced by the current expansion of one-world government thinking has evolved with the failures of the Russian military, I believe, and to a great extent is moving towards the removal of Putin as President of Russia, not by direct force of course, rather making the costs of his decisions too high for the Russian military and to a lessor degree the Russian people, to bear.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
The elites in this country were part of the Peace, Love, and Understanding crowd of the '60's and '70's. That has evolved into War, Hate, and Censorship.
The land bridge to Crimea is a chokepoint that is easily defended unless Ukraine can completely control the airspace at the point of attack. Ukraine has no ability to flank the Russians via an amphibious assault, and the Russian Black Sea fleet, even though it has been roundly discredited, will allow for re-supply of Russian forces and will be able to engage any ground attack which will be forced into a very small area.
IMO, any Ukrainian repatriation of the Crimean peninsula will have to be part of a negotiated settlement that would by necessity be after Putin leaves or is removed from office.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
Totally agree. And two things: I don't see Putin being ousted and I don't see them agreeing either way.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Well Don, now it's getting a little interesting. The German government approved transferring 178 Leopard 1 tanks and later that same day it was announce that an additional 100 Leopard 1A5 tanks would be purchased for Ukraine from Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands. This is in addition to those pledged by Portugal and possibly Belgium. While none are operational and require repair or total overhaul it does provide some food for thought. The only thing I see as an issue (if all this is true) is the ammunition required. The original model Leopard 1 main gun is 105mm and ammunition supply could be a serious issue because of very limited production worldwide. The A5 model mounts the same 120mm smoothbore gun currently in use and ammunition is more plentiful and varied.
Now tanks are being pledged in meaningful numbers and obviously sending a message to Putin. Those numbers are sufficient to equip 2-3+ brigades and those numbers could have some impact on the tactical picture if it actually comes to fruition. Again, in practical terms this is 1-2 years away and this becomes a more interesting game of poker. Everyone's raising, no one's calling, and the stakes are becoming more dangerous as a result. The Chechen leader just openly threatened that Poland, among other European countries, is likely next. At this point its blather to be sure, however words do have consequences.
I thought the Germans did not go to the 120 mm smoothbore until the Leopard 2 was launched, but may be mistaken.
The Leopard 1 and 1A5 are basically medium, not main battle tanks and are a generation behind even the Russian T-72 and probably not a capable as the obsolescent yet heavier US M-60 other than the upgraded fire control systems that would be carried. Thier armor is not competitive in any way shape or form to a modern MBT, so frankly I confess to being a little confused as to what their value would be.
I
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
Actually, the Leopard-1 tank, weight wise, was about the same as a T-72 and was considered a main battle tank when fielded. The A5's turret was designed to accommodate the 120mm gun, but the Leopard 2 came online. They may be considered medium tanks now when compared to the Leopard 2, Challenger, and Abrams tanks but then again there's a 20-ton difference in weight. If the pledged tanks are provided, they all have to be gone over and I would assume the 120 main gun would be retrofitted. I see no other option as it's been repeatedly stated that 105mm ammo is not that readily available. That is if they follow thru, saying it is one thing, doing it is another.
The decision to go this route may be based on the road and bridge weight restrictions in Ukraine. After all it was part of the Soviet Union and even when it became independent all of its equipment was of Soviet origin, designed and built with those weight limits in mind. I would guess that the "value", besides numbers, would be operating in a combined arms environment and providing direct gunfire support. Their impact will be purely local as the numbers will outfit brigades not divisions.
Well Don, this looks to be a bit revealing. The Polish PM just announced that Poland isn't going to give up any of its F-16's now. That it has to be a "Nato" decision. They simply don't have enough to donate and provide for its own defense plus they would have to train and equip the ground staff to support the aircraft. I would guess that the Dutch's potential offer is now on the back burner as well too. From a purely military perspective I can see the point. Not all of the Polish aircraft are front line per se. Some are used for conversion training; some are used to train ground and maintenance crews while others are in various states of repair. So, I get it, while the Dutch have sufficient numbers of F-35 on hand that allowed them to retire their F-16 inventory but now these may be off the table. This is a strange strategy to pursue in providing just enough ground equipment to achieve some success and dominance but no combat aircraft that would actually assist the Ukrainians in defeating the Russians.
Neither combatant has command of the air which limits their success on the ground thereby dragging the war out. Secondhand tanks requiring 1-2 years to refurbish prior to delivery extends this conflict even further. That seems to confirm your thought that the plan is make this war unsustainable for the Russians. Maybe force an internal coup to replace Putin or for the Russian population to cry no more.
Are we seeing another chapter of "containment" or "limited war" in play here because I don't see where that strategy has ever worked out too well.
wifetrained, your assessment of the war becoming unsustainable for the Russians may be spot on.
In the late 1980s, the USSR had complete air superiority in Afghanistan until the CIA began supplying surface to air Stinger missiles to the Mujahadeen. For the first time in years, the MI-24 and SU-25 ground attack aircraft became highly vulnerable to a ragtag guerilla army equipped with rifles and Toyota pickup trucks. Losses became high enough that Soviet pilots no longer felt comfortable over Afghan airspace. That, and the huge cost of fighting a war that the Soviet people became disenchanted with led to the eventual withdrawal.
If you are correct, I think Putin will simply escalate, and possibly go nuclear to prove his power. I don't see much holding him back.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
What's more concerning is how this conflict is being prosecuted and manipulated. The drips and drabs of equipment from various NATO countries. The pledge of a large number of older tanks which happen to be in need of refurbishment before delivery, which could take up to 2 years. The initial pledge of F-16's that's now walked back over issues that seem silly since they knew what was going to be needed in the first place. Everything seems geared to drag this out longer and longer. Again, I state that these leaders (term used loosely) have no concept of what they're doing and seem oblivious to the fact that the Russians care less about their casualty numbers. They have a very long history when it comes to throwing people into the meat grinder.
The head of NATO just mentioned that the Ukrainians are using ammunition faster than it can be produced...REALLY???!!!??? People can blather on all the want about the scope of this war but in overall terms this is a very limited conflict as conflicts go. If true, then how was NATO going to defend Europe with such a limited supply of weapons and ammunition to start with and insufficient manufacturing capacity to replenish stocks. There's simply something very wrong here.
Comments
And about tanks in general, if you paid attention to Russia's efforts at the beginning of their invasion. They lost a lot of tanks. IMO, the armored tank is an obsolete weapon in modern warfare.
If they were obsolete, they would have been phased out long ago. Sometimes it's not the weapon being employed in a battle but "how" it's being employed.
Sure hope you meant "deployed" with the cost of such weapons I'd hate to think we have to also pay the machines to do their job... 🤣
Correct.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Somethings about this conflict never made any sense from the get-go.
They are obsolete against a military such as Russia! They will be blown up as soon as they hit the battlefield!
All the tanks do is drag US and NATO into a war that we have no business being in!
We will never truly know what's going on over there..the Smith-Mundt act of 2012 made sure of that...
It's not meant for us to know; it's only meant for us to blindly support it.
Don, I hope your still following this thread as I do think highly of your thoughts and analysis. Portugal has just announced that they would supply Leopard 1 tanks as had Germany and possibly Belgium. All reside in storage; none are operational and would require refurbishment which could take upwards of a year plus. As this weapons platform has been out of production for decades it safe to assume a number of them will have to be cannibalized for parts just to make whatever number being supplied operational. An even larger number will have to be parted out to provide additional logistical support. So, the time required to make this work is at least a year or more thereby extending the conflict.
The Abrams tanks that were pledged all have to be new production because of the armor issue and could take a least 1-2 years to deliver once production has started at some point in the future. Again, how much longer does this extend the conflict? How long before the United States has it's "Gulf of Tonkin" incident" and the country is dragged into another conflict of unknown duration and with the most dire of consequences seeing that 3 of the current participants that are directly or indirectly involved are nuclear armed. France will make it 4 if they act on providing weapons and support.
The Baltic states have been pushing hard to "cross the red line" and while that's understandable considering their history with Russia, still is quite dangerous. None of the Baltic State have an armed force capable of defending their own territory from a Russian onslaught let alone engage in offensive operations without an article 5 declaration. Heck none of their respective Air Force's, combined, have a single combat aircraft. And just how many Nato states are really willing to go to the "dance", how many could we rely on. Turkey boasts the largest armed force in the alliance, but Turkey seems to be, and act, more foe than friend and has for decades been at loggerheads with Greece, another Nato member, over Cyprus and the Aegean Sea. And they have been cozying up to the Russians for years so who knows just how reliable they would actually be. Should they even be allowed to stay within the Alliance. Problematic to say the least since there's a convoluted method for acceptance but none at all when it comes to expulsions. Weird huh?
We won't supply F-16 fighters because we say it could be a "provocative escalation", but Nato members can send them and somehow, it's not a "provocative escalation". Poland has already agreed to supply them, and the Dutch are considering it. How long to deliver them, how long to train crews and maintenance personnel, what about the logistics, how many years does this extend the conflict? None of these aircraft are new builds, many are decades old with thousands of hours on the airframes. How long can they be utilized before they themselves need to be replaced and what could be viewed as an effective replacement but not a potentially "provocative escalation"? Of those fighters' jets, how many themselves require refurbishment, at what level can this work be done? If it's depot level, then it could take months if not years to complete depending on the airframes condition, and at what cost, who's paying?
The Abrams issue is interesting in that the number to be provided, 31, is probably the minimum needed just to set up a training establishment to train tank crews and maintenance personnel. Unless that's already being done somewhere in Nato territory. Even still the number involved would effectively equip 2 armored companies and that would have little to no effect on the tactical picture. You would need hundreds, in fact several hundred, to have any effect and since there's only one production line in this country which has a massive backlog of orders and again, we are looking at years of conflict. Talk about a catch 22 scenario.
That seems to be what the plan was from the start, your thought?
IMO, the delay in getting first line NATO tanks into the theater involves the removal of highly sensitive equipment from the tanks so those that will w inevitably fall into Russian hands do not show them our actual capabilities.
Lima has not built a new Abrams from the ground up for decades, so the ‘new builds’ will be refurbished tanks set up to a lower standard than what the US Army receives. From that standpoint, the delay makes sense. By extension, the Leopards and Challengers will be configured in the same manner. The same may also be true for F-16s and/or other aircraft.
The primary goal today would then be a signal to Russia that we are in this for the long haul. Putin is then faced with deciding whether he can win an ongoing war of attrition, go for broke in the next 6 months, or make some effort to save face with a negotiated settlement. Anyone who thinks they can answer that for him is just guessing.
Brad Steele
So you don't think we'll have a "gulf of Tonkin" incident that would compel our direct involvement?
No question that this is currently a war of attrition. That said, it only involves, at the moment, the Ukrainians and the Russians while everyone else is dancing on the fringes. Just not too sure how long that can play out. Russia has a long history when it comes to its blatant disregard to casualties or the massive losses of equipment.
I can understand the time lag to a point but really wonder if it's just a tactic to drag the conflict out. It seems odd that announcements regarding equipment being supplied, current condition, time to repair/refurbish are being made in the open knowing the Russians are listening and reading. Declaring the intent to drag this out for as long as it takes may not only antagonize them, but they may also simply decide not to play that game and up the ante. Then what??? Call or raise.
I don’t see a Gulf of Tonkin type incident, as I think (hope) that after the disaster that was the invasion of Iraq, the American psyche will resist a manufactured or hyped reason to enter another war.
The greater probability is that Russia will attack supply lines within the border of a NATO country, leaving the west with a real conundrum. Do we honor a commitment to go to war to protect the sovereign territory of a NATO partner when the attack is specifically targeted to a military asset with a known and obvious destination? If Putin takes out a train carrying Leopard tanks just inside Romania or Slovakia e route to Ukraine, does NATO declare war on Russia?
Perhaps more importantly, should it?
Brad Steele
I believe an attack on supply lines in a country that is a part of NATO carrying military equipment to Ukraine would draw us in, especially if any Americans were killed. One only has to look back on history. The sinking of the Lusitania is actually what brought about us interning WW1, there were 130 I believe Americans killed. It brought about anti German sentiment that later brought us in to the war.
If Putin did decide to try and attack supply lines. I’m sure he would try and do it covertly, if not, and he used his military, I believe that would test NATOs resolve. Things could get bad real quick.
Food for thought no doubt. I fear that the longer this conflict is dragged out the greater the risk of escalation to the point of outright war. As a 20 yr. vet I look at this conflict, the way it's played out to date, the rhetoric from all parties and something just doesn't sit right. I smell a rat.
Don't know if this is true..can someone confirm it..?? https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRGre1Vk/
The sinking of the Lusitania shifted support on the war towards the allies and it and the hyping of the Zimmerman telegram that galvanized the US to declare war. The main reason, which has an application here, is that Wilson wanted to bring peace to the world and establish what we now think of as a one world government.
Putin is a disrupter who cannot be brought into the fold. He needs to be resisted to the point of either his committing of National suicide or forceable removal. Ukraine is the unlucky field upon which this is taking place.
Brad Steele
I don't know Don, maybe I've burned out too many brain cells as I'm not seeing the linkage here. Public opinion was squarely on the side of Ukraine from the very start, nothing else would have been needed. It's almost to the level of mounting a crusade against the Russians, but one where we weren't "directly" involved (wink wink). What concerns me are the numbers, the ever-increasing timelines and the probable chance of a misstep.
If your assumption is correct, that the Biden Administration basically green lighted a limited Russian incursion then one can also make the assumption that it was a designed trap to get a conflict going in the first place as the reported numbers in the initial assault force made absolutely no sense from a tactical perspective let alone a strategic one. It would also explain the slobbering lovefest for Zelensky, the resulting hatred for Putin and the ultimate goal of regime change in Moscow.
I do not think Biden green lighted it on purpose. I believe that during a meeting with his national security team, the discussion was that we would adopt a graduated approach to Russian aggression, and Biden did not understand that the graduated response was not for public consumption and stupidly blurted it out. The day he said it I turned to my wife and said 'That idiot just told Putin that it was OK to invade Ukraine'.
That said, while public support has been strongly with Ukraine from the start, I don't think there was anyone who thought the Russian advance would have been as poorly executed as it was, and most believed that Ukraine was going to cease to exist as a sovereign nation within months if not weeks. Once we saw that the Russian juggernaut was somewhat of a paper tiger, the policy shifted to containment and feeding enough weaponry to stop any further advance. Now that Ukraine has shown the ability to advance with the help of western intel and military machinery and weapons, the policy has again shifted with us now committing to offensive weaponry so that Ukraine may be in a position to regain territory.
The stopping of the initial invasion was an international embarrassment for Putin. The long running stalemate was more of an embarrassment, and the expulsion of Russian troops will be an embarrassment that will likely end his Presidency. The policy of the US and our allies as influenced by the current expansion of one-world government thinking has evolved with the failures of the Russian military, I believe, and to a great extent is moving towards the removal of Putin as President of Russia, not by direct force of course, rather making the costs of his decisions too high for the Russian military and to a lessor degree the Russian people, to bear.
Brad Steele
What do you think will happen if Ukraine attempts to retake the Crimean Peninsula?
The elites in this country were part of the Peace, Love, and Understanding crowd of the '60's and '70's. That has evolved into War, Hate, and Censorship.
Yes, be ready. Once the first button is pushed, it'll all be over in a matter of minutes. It will be very hot, then very, very cold.
Make your peace now, before it's too late. You don't want to be left behind.
Things certainly are not good.
I think they will get their butts handed to them.
The land bridge to Crimea is a chokepoint that is easily defended unless Ukraine can completely control the airspace at the point of attack. Ukraine has no ability to flank the Russians via an amphibious assault, and the Russian Black Sea fleet, even though it has been roundly discredited, will allow for re-supply of Russian forces and will be able to engage any ground attack which will be forced into a very small area.
IMO, any Ukrainian repatriation of the Crimean peninsula will have to be part of a negotiated settlement that would by necessity be after Putin leaves or is removed from office.
Brad Steele
Totally agree. And two things: I don't see Putin being ousted and I don't see them agreeing either way.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Well Don, now it's getting a little interesting. The German government approved transferring 178 Leopard 1 tanks and later that same day it was announce that an additional 100 Leopard 1A5 tanks would be purchased for Ukraine from Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands. This is in addition to those pledged by Portugal and possibly Belgium. While none are operational and require repair or total overhaul it does provide some food for thought. The only thing I see as an issue (if all this is true) is the ammunition required. The original model Leopard 1 main gun is 105mm and ammunition supply could be a serious issue because of very limited production worldwide. The A5 model mounts the same 120mm smoothbore gun currently in use and ammunition is more plentiful and varied.
Now tanks are being pledged in meaningful numbers and obviously sending a message to Putin. Those numbers are sufficient to equip 2-3+ brigades and those numbers could have some impact on the tactical picture if it actually comes to fruition. Again, in practical terms this is 1-2 years away and this becomes a more interesting game of poker. Everyone's raising, no one's calling, and the stakes are becoming more dangerous as a result. The Chechen leader just openly threatened that Poland, among other European countries, is likely next. At this point its blather to be sure, however words do have consequences.
I thought the Germans did not go to the 120 mm smoothbore until the Leopard 2 was launched, but may be mistaken.
The Leopard 1 and 1A5 are basically medium, not main battle tanks and are a generation behind even the Russian T-72 and probably not a capable as the obsolescent yet heavier US M-60 other than the upgraded fire control systems that would be carried. Thier armor is not competitive in any way shape or form to a modern MBT, so frankly I confess to being a little confused as to what their value would be.
I
Brad Steele
Actually, the Leopard-1 tank, weight wise, was about the same as a T-72 and was considered a main battle tank when fielded. The A5's turret was designed to accommodate the 120mm gun, but the Leopard 2 came online. They may be considered medium tanks now when compared to the Leopard 2, Challenger, and Abrams tanks but then again there's a 20-ton difference in weight. If the pledged tanks are provided, they all have to be gone over and I would assume the 120 main gun would be retrofitted. I see no other option as it's been repeatedly stated that 105mm ammo is not that readily available. That is if they follow thru, saying it is one thing, doing it is another.
The decision to go this route may be based on the road and bridge weight restrictions in Ukraine. After all it was part of the Soviet Union and even when it became independent all of its equipment was of Soviet origin, designed and built with those weight limits in mind. I would guess that the "value", besides numbers, would be operating in a combined arms environment and providing direct gunfire support. Their impact will be purely local as the numbers will outfit brigades not divisions.
Now its reported that the US is providing targeting data that enables Ukraine to hit Russian targets. Now I would call that an escalation.
Well Don, this looks to be a bit revealing. The Polish PM just announced that Poland isn't going to give up any of its F-16's now. That it has to be a "Nato" decision. They simply don't have enough to donate and provide for its own defense plus they would have to train and equip the ground staff to support the aircraft. I would guess that the Dutch's potential offer is now on the back burner as well too. From a purely military perspective I can see the point. Not all of the Polish aircraft are front line per se. Some are used for conversion training; some are used to train ground and maintenance crews while others are in various states of repair. So, I get it, while the Dutch have sufficient numbers of F-35 on hand that allowed them to retire their F-16 inventory but now these may be off the table. This is a strange strategy to pursue in providing just enough ground equipment to achieve some success and dominance but no combat aircraft that would actually assist the Ukrainians in defeating the Russians.
Neither combatant has command of the air which limits their success on the ground thereby dragging the war out. Secondhand tanks requiring 1-2 years to refurbish prior to delivery extends this conflict even further. That seems to confirm your thought that the plan is make this war unsustainable for the Russians. Maybe force an internal coup to replace Putin or for the Russian population to cry no more.
Are we seeing another chapter of "containment" or "limited war" in play here because I don't see where that strategy has ever worked out too well.
wifetrained, your assessment of the war becoming unsustainable for the Russians may be spot on.
In the late 1980s, the USSR had complete air superiority in Afghanistan until the CIA began supplying surface to air Stinger missiles to the Mujahadeen. For the first time in years, the MI-24 and SU-25 ground attack aircraft became highly vulnerable to a ragtag guerilla army equipped with rifles and Toyota pickup trucks. Losses became high enough that Soviet pilots no longer felt comfortable over Afghan airspace. That, and the huge cost of fighting a war that the Soviet people became disenchanted with led to the eventual withdrawal.
If you are correct, I think Putin will simply escalate, and possibly go nuclear to prove his power. I don't see much holding him back.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
There are too many things regarding this conflict that made no sense from the get-go.
Well, here's an interesting bit of news. Looking like things are progressing toward war:
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
What's more concerning is how this conflict is being prosecuted and manipulated. The drips and drabs of equipment from various NATO countries. The pledge of a large number of older tanks which happen to be in need of refurbishment before delivery, which could take up to 2 years. The initial pledge of F-16's that's now walked back over issues that seem silly since they knew what was going to be needed in the first place. Everything seems geared to drag this out longer and longer. Again, I state that these leaders (term used loosely) have no concept of what they're doing and seem oblivious to the fact that the Russians care less about their casualty numbers. They have a very long history when it comes to throwing people into the meat grinder.
The head of NATO just mentioned that the Ukrainians are using ammunition faster than it can be produced...REALLY???!!!??? People can blather on all the want about the scope of this war but in overall terms this is a very limited conflict as conflicts go. If true, then how was NATO going to defend Europe with such a limited supply of weapons and ammunition to start with and insufficient manufacturing capacity to replenish stocks. There's simply something very wrong here.
Read the comments.. they're blaming Trump..the amount of Stupidity in this country is Overwhelming...
And they're in power. The blatant stupidity shown is dwarfed only by their arrogance.
Quick... Look Over There... Aliens....
And I bet they're illegal ones.
you know you can't call them that, they are undocumented............