Russia's War Against Ukraine

[Gusington]

'Good evening, we from Ukraine' has a nice air of menace when paired with that image 

[Gusington]

Of course I don't want to see Russia win this war, but a massive loss for Russia will be felt far from Moscow - like in Armenia and Azerbaijan:

[GDS_Starfury]

[Gusington]

Spain for the win, wowzers

[W8taminute]

Great video regarding Nagorno Karabagh you posted Gus.  That guy knows what he's talking about.

[Gusington]

Yeah he's got some great content.

[GDS_Starfury]

how not to do the combined arms thing.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1618343407075864576

[GDS_Starfury]

I cant make this shit up...
scroll down the thread for the captioned version as I cant seem to link that one.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1618333651883941888

anyone else ever wondered what an M1 or Leo would do to a T-34?

[GDS_Starfury]

a good thread with useful links.

https://twitter.com/WarintheFuture/status/1618377888113516545

[Crossroads]

-snip-

#FreeTheLeopards - Leopards have been set free!

You guys maybe know this already, but Leopard 2s are not alike, not at all. Here's a quick guideline (maybe a silly one but here we go) to differentiate between the various versions:

Leopard 2A4 - This is your proverbial late WW2 PzKpfw IV. A capable main weapon, but vulnerable. 2A4 as a rule has 1st generation (B-tech) armour modules in hull, and 2nd generation (C-tech) armour in turret.

Leopard 2A5 - PzKpfw V Panther with a PzKpfw IV main gun. Very capable armour: 2nd Gen in hull, 3rd gen (D-tech) in turret.From this version there's the > shaped added armour in turret front.

Leopard 2A6 - PzKpfw V Panther, with the high velocity, long main cannon

Leopard 2A7 - ermm... PzKpfw VIB King Tiger with Panther gun (with improved ammo). Most modern 2A7 have 3rd gen armour installed in hull, too. Then there's the added weight, so not a Panther any more for this reason.

Add to that each Leo2 operator made their nation specific fleet some changes. Then there's the 2A4/6/7 M-versions, with better protection against mines. Etc etc.

Maybe a silly comparison but something to think when you consider what models each army is giving to Ukraine.

Edit also take those numbers with a grain of salt. I have not seen many of those numbers confirmed anywhere.

[ArizonaTank]

It is interesting that the M-1s are not going right away. Piecing info together from several news reports, the M-1s are being sent through a US Government fund known as the "Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative."

This means they will be purchased from the manufacturer and not sent from US military stocks. The M-1s in US military stocks are not export versions. The speculation is that they will be refurbished models and may take months to get to Ukraine.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/m1-abrams-tanks-in-us-inventory-have-armor-too-secret-to-send-to-ukraine/ar-AA16JSSZ

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/reversal-us-agrees-send-31-abrams-tanks-ukraine-2023-01-25/

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/m1-abrams-for-ukrainian-armed-forces-will-be-provided-by-the-manufacturer-not-the-us-army-reuters/

[MengJiao]

  Speaking of things along those lines, ISW has concluded that the Russians are really worried about Ukraine's getting modern tanks.  This real worry is detectable (according to ISW) because the Russians are saying the modern tanks are not a problem (which means of course that they think the tanks are a problem).  ISW also points out that the tanks don't have to arrive for them to enter into Ukrainian calculations of acceptable losses in their current tank inventory:

The Kremlin and Russian milbloggers attempted to play down the Western provision of tanks to Ukraine, indicating that they likely find these systems threatening to Russian prospects. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated on January 25 that the Western provision of Abrams and Leopard tanks to Ukraine is "quite a failure ... in terms of technological aspects" and that there is a "clear overestimation of the potential that [these tanks] will add" to Ukrainian forces.[10] Some Russian milbloggers likely sought to reassure their domestic audiences by claiming that these systems do not pose a significant threat and that previous Western systems like HIMARS are a far more serious threat.[11] The Kremlin and Russian milbloggers previously framed the Western provision of purely defensive Patriot missile systems as a serious escalation between Russia and the West.[12] The fact that the Kremlin and Russian milbloggers did not frame the provision of armored vehicles that could actually aid future Ukrainian counteroffensive operations as escalatory suggests that the Kremlin and the Russian information space continue to selectively choose which systems to frame as an escalation. The Kremlin and Russian milbloggers seem more concerned in this case with calming potential fears of the impact of Western commitments to supply Ukraine with tanks than with feeding the escalation narrative in the West. The Kremlin and its allies are right to be concerned about these new Western commitments, which allow Ukrainian commanders to plan against replacements for tank losses they could expect in counter-offensive operations that might be launched even before the Western tanks begin to arrive.

[Gusington]

The Russians must have really good weed 

[FarAway Sooner]

Between training, customizing, establishing a logistical chain, and integrating them into the regular Ukrainian armed forces, these will take a while to make their presence known on the battlefield.  Even when they arrive, they don't do anything fundamentally different than T-72s did; they just do it better.

The HIMARS was a game changer because it extended the range of Ukrainian artillery 30 miles further into the Russian rear area, and it did so with significant accuracy.  If the Leopards or the Challengers or the Abrams will do the same thing on the tactical battlefield, I haven't seen it yet.

I'm glad to see NATO doing it.  I just don't see it being as big a deal as the media is making it out to be.  I actually think providing ATACMS would be at least as big a game changer, although I don't honestly know how many of those missiles (or how many HIMARS rockets) we'd be able to provide.  Being able to threaten Russian HQ units and logistical hubs another 60 miles behind the front lines seems more revolutionary to me, but maybe I'm missing something?

[MengJiao]

Between training, customizing, establishing a logistical chain, and integrating them into the regular Ukrainian armed forces, these will take a while to make their presence known on the battlefield.  Even when they arrive, they don't do anything fundamentally different than T-72s did; they just do it better.

The HIMARS was a game changer because it extended the range of Ukrainian artillery 30 miles further into the Russian rear area, and it did so with significant accuracy.  If the Leopards or the Challengers or the Abrams will do the same thing on the tactical battlefield, I haven't seen it yet.

I'm glad to see NATO doing it.  I just don't see it being as big a deal as the media is making it out to be.  I actually think providing ATACMS would be at least as big a game changer, although I don't honestly know how many of those missiles (or how many HIMARS rockets) we'd be able to provide.  Being able to threaten Russian HQ units and logistical hubs another 60 miles behind the front lines seems more revolutionary to me, but maybe I'm missing something?

  No, you are correct, I think.  The technology of the tanks isn't the game changer, it's the fact that the Ukrainians are getting any new tanks at all.  This presents a real problem if the Russians are hoping for the success of a strategy of long-term attrition.

   Another problem for the Russians is that most of the refurbishing, mods, and training for these tanks will be happening beyond the range of their conventional weapons.

   Another twist is that, since these tanks will take quite a while to arrive, it is becoming clearer than ever that the Russian fantasy of a hegemony of the West at their expense may not be a fantasy at all as the Western economies adapt and settle down to arming Ukraine for as long as it takes, the Russians face what they had invented themselves: a West that is solidifying against them with a total economic strength 30-50 times that of the Russian economy.  Not a pretty prospect and one (perhaps even more horrifying) that their own paranoia brought upon themselves.