|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On September 21 2022 18:16 Ardias wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2022 18:03 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 21 2022 17:39 r00ty wrote:There is a lot that can be done without just sending new weapon systems. General Wesley Clarke, mentioned in this CNN interview + Show Spoiler +, that most NATO sponsored equipment must be dragged back to Poland for repair and maintenance at the moment. Western contractors in Ukraine would make a huge difference here. I think sending Leopard tanks does not make sense. It's a complicated system, training and establishing a supply chain will take time. Are main battle tanks the factor in this war? I doubt it. I would: -Buy all available T72s and other systems, they have experience with and the infrastructure for: Send them to Ukraine. -Deliver more conventional and rocket artillery. KRAD, M777, PzH 2000 and HIMARS/MARS are effectively used, send as much as we can. -Open the vaults for ammunitions. There's other forms of improvement than the 500km ATACMS missiles: Delivering 150km precision missiles should be the first step and we should not wait. -As mentioned, we need to get contractors on the ground in Ukraine to make the supply chains less complicated and they should be accompanied by modern anti air and missile systems. The Russian air force can't take control now, we don't need jets on the ground to basically enforce a no fly zone. Another sad day for all Ukrainians and Russians who will keep dieing in this senseless conflict. The difference between T72s and Leopard 2s is twofold. - Most freely available T72s were already sent to UA. There are more than 2000 Leopard 2s near UA, so getting less than 100 of them sent among all nations shouldn't be that hard. But, this must be allowed by DE, as the export of DE-made equipment needs their approval. Maintenance facilities, spare parts, and trainers are freely available nearby. (This is also why Abrams would be a worse choice, distances increase.) - Leopard 2s are much more survivable and will allow UA to conduct combined arms offensives with fewer casualties. And these are necessary to take back territory. UA has shown the ability to maintain its current Western equipment and use them effectively. It's odd to assume it cannot do so with tanks when it can use and maintain complex howitzers such as the PZH 2000. Tbh, they should have been sent for this autumn offensive, but they definitely should be sent now, because: - UA showcased exemplary capability to conduct combined arms offensives in Kharkiv, - Setting up training and maintenance will take a while. - RU wants to escalate, but its lines are vulnerable to collapse in the short-to-medium term. Artesimo was underlining problems with Leo2 few pages ago though: 1) They are all in active service (so those who will send them would weaken their own armed forces, while thousands on M1s are sitting in storage) 2) They are thinly dispersed in small numbers (100-200) between dozen of countries (While most of the M1s are in US, so decision to deliver them is based on their will only, rather on the will of many). 3) Plus maintenance and ammunition costs would be beard by Germany, which has much less capacity and money than US. 4) There are 10+k M1s produced against 3,5k Leo2 produced. So the M1 seems more convinient option, though their transfer would be more costly, but not unbearably so. US somehow managed to deliver hundreds of them to Iraq and Afghanistan, when they wanted to. Though looking at Slovenia sending their modernized T-55, there could be another options with older models. Another important thing is that those T-55s are armed with 105-mm L7 cannon, so somebody must start to supply those shells to UA as well.
Those are not particularly convincing arguments, more like the kind of excuses DE often makes before sending the stuff anyway (see Dingoes). It's ignoring the discussion of pooling Leopard 2 countries, so that the losses, costs of maintenance and ammo, etc. is shared by all. So, for example, the maintenance and ammunition costs would definitely not be borne by DE.
Most likely we'll see some Abrams sent too, but... with those you'll see the problem with maintenance a great deal more. Just providing the necessary quantity of fuel will be a hassle.
There's a reason why UA and its more vocal allies are asking for Leopards, it makes the most sense for the next stage of the war.
|
On September 21 2022 18:52 maybenexttime wrote:
I don't see why countries like Spain etc. couldn't send even half of their fleet. Many NATO members are surrounded by allies. Their only enemy is Russia, fighting which those tanks would help if given to Ukraine.
Because replacing them costs time and hurts training efforts, which can lead to very long term problems. I also don't know what position spains armed forces are in, but the german bundeswehr is rightfully reluctant in giving anything away because chances are that capability will never get replaced.
Also
UA has shown the ability to maintain its current Western equipment and use them effectively. It's odd to assume it cannot do so with tanks when it can use and maintain complex howitzers such as the PZH 2000.
Without hashing out what kind of struggles and obstacles the PzH maintenance has faced/is still facing, this is not about 'ukraine is too dumb to maintain these systems'. It is about ukraine still having limited manpower capabilities as well as logistics. You want to avoid having a wild mix of systems because it burdens your logistics system with additional spare parts etc, it burdens your manpower with having to specialise your mechanics, it possibly burdens your infrastructure with having to accommodate special tools/equipment. I also linked to an interview further back where in one question its clear that ukraine knows this and that you would need to send much more than 100 to make those costs worth it [translation of the interview].
Currently, a lot of the western equipment, if not most, has to get hauled across the border to fix more serious issues, including the PzH [en.defence-ua.com][militaryleak.com]. I think having a more homogenous tank force is essential to avoid this and to give ukraine a chance of building up their own repair infrastructure more for western weapons. still think abrahams are the most realistic way to get there for the reasons mentioned in my previous post on the issue.
The US also has very good experience with setting up support structures for their tanks abroad, which would setting up repair facilities on ukraines borders much easier. It also might be easier for them to allow non government contractors to work in ukraine, but I am entirely speculating on this. Idk how feasible it is, or how likely it even is to ever pass. They def have a lot of experience in setting up non government support structures though, so if getting contractors into ukraine is a possibility, the US once again looks like the best candidate for it to me by far. Since you have to train people on the new tanks anyway, you have some time to set up the repair structures as well.
On September 21 2022 19:03 Ghanburighan wrote:
There's a reason why UA and its more vocal allies are asking for Leopards, it makes the most sense for the next stage of the war.
The ukrainian government is, but they ask for pretty much anything to put pressure on the countries giving aid. The ukrainian military, like in the linked interview, seems to have a different and more nuanced view on the issue. Of course if the choice is between getting nothing and getting any tank, they will pick any tank.
Its like if you were to point at germany sending more PzH as proof that the claim of the german military we can not afford to send more is wrong. Those are decisions made by 2 different bodies (politics and military) for different reasons with different concerns in mind. It is politics and military not being aligned, but politics has the last word.
EDIT: Like screw repair structures, the US has enough Abrahams in storage to just replace every tank that gets dragged across the borders for repairs with a fresh one and not having to worry about repairing it in time. They operate at such a larger scale that fighting over a specific numbers of tanks with them would be so much easier. The EU countries would feel the sting of a couple of hundred leopards going abroad, the US can cough those up without even really noticing. They have been buying the things in part just to keep the production lines open...
|
Putin ally, Alisher Usmanovs properties and offices in Germany have been raided by the Bundespolizei. He is accused of tax evasion of a couple million €. www.tagesschau.de There should be daily news like this in every European country, take the gloves off, let's get em' where we can.
In other news, Germany is nationalising the energy provider Uniper.
I keep my fingers crossed for a Leopard deal, but am not optimistic.
The Leopard II was to be replaced by a French/German co-development in 2035 and the project wasn't exactly hurried. Who really needed a new MBT? The Leopards were barely used. There isn't even a prototype for the replacement yet, afaik. Of course the industry has fancy stuff to sell, like Rheinmetall instantly presented a new Panther MBT after the 100b special investment was announced...
Pooling the Leopards would mean Ukraine receiving different variants and generations of the system, doesn't make it easier. The PzH shares components and technology with the Leopard but is apparently maintained and serviced in Poland.
|
On September 21 2022 19:26 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2022 18:52 maybenexttime wrote:
I don't see why countries like Spain etc. couldn't send even half of their fleet. Many NATO members are surrounded by allies. Their only enemy is Russia, fighting which those tanks would help if given to Ukraine. Because replacing them costs time and hurts training efforts, which can lead to very long term problems. I also don't know what position spains armed forces are in, but the german bundeswehr is rightfully reluctant in giving anything away because chances are that capability will never get replaced. Also Show nested quote +UA has shown the ability to maintain its current Western equipment and use them effectively. It's odd to assume it cannot do so with tanks when it can use and maintain complex howitzers such as the PZH 2000. Without hashing out what kind of struggles and obstacles the PzH maintenance has faced/is still facing, this is not about 'ukraine is too dumb to maintain these systems'. It is about ukraine still having limited manpower capabilities as well as logistics. You want to avoid having a wild mix of systems because it burdens your logistics system with additional spare parts etc, it burdens your manpower with having to specialise your mechanics, it possibly burdens your infrastructure with having to accommodate special tools/equipment. I also linked to an interview further back where in one question its clear that ukraine knows this and that you would need to send much more than 100 to make those costs worth it [ translation of the interview]. Currently, a lot of the western equipment, if not most, has to get hauled across the border to fix more serious issues, including the PzH [ en.defence-ua.com][ militaryleak.com]. I think having a more homogenous tank force is essential to avoid this and to give ukraine a chance of building up their own repair infrastructure more for western weapons. still think abrahams are the most realistic way to get there for the reasons mentioned in my previous post on the issue. The US also has very good experience with setting up support structures for their tanks abroad, which would setting up repair facilities on ukraines borders much easier. It also might be easier for them to allow non government contractors to work in ukraine, but I am entirely speculating on this. Idk how feasible it is, or how likely it even is to ever pass. They def have a lot of experience in setting up non government support structures though, so if getting contractors into ukraine is a possibility, the US once again looks like the best candidate for it to me by far. Since you have to train people on the new tanks anyway, you have some time to set up the repair structures as well. Show nested quote +On September 21 2022 19:03 Ghanburighan wrote:
There's a reason why UA and its more vocal allies are asking for Leopards, it makes the most sense for the next stage of the war.
The ukrainian government is, but they ask for pretty much anything to put pressure on the countries giving aid. The ukrainian military, like in the linked interview, seems to have a different and more nuanced view on the issue. Of course if the choice is between getting nothing and getting any tank, they will pick any tank. Its like if you were to point at germany sending more PzH as proof that the claim of the german military we can not afford to send more is wrong. Those are decisions made by 2 different bodies (politics and military) for different reasons with different concerns in mind. It is politics and military not being aligned, but politics has the last word. EDIT: Like screw repair structures, the US has enough Abrahams in storage to just replace every tank that gets dragged across the borders for repairs with a fresh one and not having to worry about repairing it in time. They operate at such a larger scale that fighting over a specific numbers of tanks with them would be so much easier. The EU countries would feel the sting of a couple of hundred leopards going abroad, the US can cough those up without even really noticing. They have been buying the things in part just to keep the production lines open...
Spain's ground army is rather pitiful. On paper it's powerful, but the truth is, the Spanish fleet, and I guess air force are its main defenses. It has lots of Leopard tanks, but most are mothballed, and....
Minister of Defense of Spain, Margarita Robles, announced that the government cannot send its mothballed Leopard 2A4 tanks to Ukraine as they are "in an absolutely deplorable state."
"We are today looking at all the possibilities, but I can already say that the Leopards in Zaragoza that have not been used for many years cannot be sent [to Ukraine] because they are in an absolutely deplorable state," El Mundo quotes Robles.
According to her, they tested the tanks and found they were in bad condition.
"We can't give them away because they would be a risk to the people using them," Robles explained.
(Found an English source. I originally read it in Spanish: https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/eng/news/2022/08/2/7144289/#:~:text=with Russia ...-,Spain to Not Send Leopard Tanks,Due to Their "Deplorable State"&text=Minister of Defense of Spain,in an absolutely deplorable state.")
|
On September 21 2022 19:26 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2022 18:52 maybenexttime wrote:
I don't see why countries like Spain etc. couldn't send even half of their fleet. Many NATO members are surrounded by allies. Their only enemy is Russia, fighting which those tanks would help if given to Ukraine. Because replacing them costs time and hurts training efforts, which can lead to very long term problems. I also don't know what position spains armed forces are in, but the german bundeswehr is rightfully reluctant in giving anything away because chances are that capability will never get replaced. Also Show nested quote +UA has shown the ability to maintain its current Western equipment and use them effectively. It's odd to assume it cannot do so with tanks when it can use and maintain complex howitzers such as the PZH 2000. Without hashing out what kind of struggles and obstacles the PzH maintenance has faced/is still facing, this is not about 'ukraine is too dumb to maintain these systems'. It is about ukraine still having limited manpower capabilities as well as logistics. You want to avoid having a wild mix of systems because it burdens your logistics system with additional spare parts etc, it burdens your manpower with having to specialise your mechanics, it possibly burdens your infrastructure with having to accommodate special tools/equipment. I also linked to an interview further back where in one question its clear that ukraine knows this and that you would need to send much more than 100 to make those costs worth it [ translation of the interview]. Currently, a lot of the western equipment, if not most, has to get hauled across the border to fix more serious issues, including the PzH [ en.defence-ua.com][ militaryleak.com]. I think having a more homogenous tank force is essential to avoid this and to give ukraine a chance of building up their own repair infrastructure more for western weapons. still think abrahams are the most realistic way to get there for the reasons mentioned in my previous post on the issue. The US also has very good experience with setting up support structures for their tanks abroad, which would setting up repair facilities on ukraines borders much easier. It also might be easier for them to allow non government contractors to work in ukraine, but I am entirely speculating on this. Idk how feasible it is, or how likely it even is to ever pass. They def have a lot of experience in setting up non government support structures though, so if getting contractors into ukraine is a possibility, the US once again looks like the best candidate for it to me by far. Since you have to train people on the new tanks anyway, you have some time to set up the repair structures as well. Show nested quote +On September 21 2022 19:03 Ghanburighan wrote:
There's a reason why UA and its more vocal allies are asking for Leopards, it makes the most sense for the next stage of the war.
The ukrainian government is, but they ask for pretty much anything to put pressure on the countries giving aid. The ukrainian military, like in the linked interview, seems to have a different and more nuanced view on the issue. Of course if the choice is between getting nothing and getting any tank, they will pick any tank. Its like if you were to point at germany sending more PzH as proof that the claim of the german military we can not afford to send more is wrong. Those are decisions made by 2 different bodies (politics and military) for different reasons with different concerns in mind. It is politics and military not being aligned, but politics has the last word. EDIT: Like screw repair structures, the US has enough Abrahams in storage to just replace every tank that gets dragged across the borders for repairs with a fresh one and not having to worry about repairing it in time. They operate at such a larger scale that fighting over a specific numbers of tanks with them would be so much easier. The EU countries would feel the sting of a couple of hundred leopards going abroad, the US can cough those up without even really noticing. They have been buying the things in part just to keep the production lines open...
This is not a debate on what's better for UA, Abrams or Leopards, both should be sent and both probably will be sent.
The ukrainian government is, but they ask for pretty much anything to put pressure on the countries giving aid. The ukrainian military, like in the linked interview, seems to have a different and more nuanced view on the issue. Of course if the choice is between getting nothing and getting any tank, they will pick any tank.
There's no disconnect between UA military and UA political leadership. This is entirely made up. Zelenskyy asks for what the generals request. They've been asking for MBTs. We should trust the assessment of the people who have beaten back the Russian invasion with javelins and stingers, and just conducted the most successful combined arms offensive on European soil since WWII (honorable mention to Croatia).
As for "complicated logistics", let the Ukrainians worry about that. If they can manage to integrate heavily modified T-55s, with specialized ammo, as Ardias pointed out, we should trust them to know how integrate the best tanks on the planet.
Also, notice that we shouldn't be focusing on mothball tanks, the US has also said that the M1s in storage cannot be sent due to their condition. We're talking about sending active service tanks. Just like Poland, Czech Republic, Slovenia and others have sent their active service tanks. And they will purchase new tanks, some via the DE Ringtausch, but these won't be ready for years. But because RU is otherwise engaged in UA, as long as UA continues to do well, NATO countries won't need their tanks. It's a good time to upgrade.
So, once again, don't try to armchair general what's good for Ukraine, listen to the Ukrainians, and have the military specialists work on the details.
|
On September 21 2022 20:59 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2022 19:26 Artesimo wrote:On September 21 2022 18:52 maybenexttime wrote:
I don't see why countries like Spain etc. couldn't send even half of their fleet. Many NATO members are surrounded by allies. Their only enemy is Russia, fighting which those tanks would help if given to Ukraine. Because replacing them costs time and hurts training efforts, which can lead to very long term problems. I also don't know what position spains armed forces are in, but the german bundeswehr is rightfully reluctant in giving anything away because chances are that capability will never get replaced. Also UA has shown the ability to maintain its current Western equipment and use them effectively. It's odd to assume it cannot do so with tanks when it can use and maintain complex howitzers such as the PZH 2000. Without hashing out what kind of struggles and obstacles the PzH maintenance has faced/is still facing, this is not about 'ukraine is too dumb to maintain these systems'. It is about ukraine still having limited manpower capabilities as well as logistics. You want to avoid having a wild mix of systems because it burdens your logistics system with additional spare parts etc, it burdens your manpower with having to specialise your mechanics, it possibly burdens your infrastructure with having to accommodate special tools/equipment. I also linked to an interview further back where in one question its clear that ukraine knows this and that you would need to send much more than 100 to make those costs worth it [ translation of the interview]. Currently, a lot of the western equipment, if not most, has to get hauled across the border to fix more serious issues, including the PzH [ en.defence-ua.com][ militaryleak.com]. I think having a more homogenous tank force is essential to avoid this and to give ukraine a chance of building up their own repair infrastructure more for western weapons. still think abrahams are the most realistic way to get there for the reasons mentioned in my previous post on the issue. The US also has very good experience with setting up support structures for their tanks abroad, which would setting up repair facilities on ukraines borders much easier. It also might be easier for them to allow non government contractors to work in ukraine, but I am entirely speculating on this. Idk how feasible it is, or how likely it even is to ever pass. They def have a lot of experience in setting up non government support structures though, so if getting contractors into ukraine is a possibility, the US once again looks like the best candidate for it to me by far. Since you have to train people on the new tanks anyway, you have some time to set up the repair structures as well. On September 21 2022 19:03 Ghanburighan wrote:
There's a reason why UA and its more vocal allies are asking for Leopards, it makes the most sense for the next stage of the war.
The ukrainian government is, but they ask for pretty much anything to put pressure on the countries giving aid. The ukrainian military, like in the linked interview, seems to have a different and more nuanced view on the issue. Of course if the choice is between getting nothing and getting any tank, they will pick any tank. Its like if you were to point at germany sending more PzH as proof that the claim of the german military we can not afford to send more is wrong. Those are decisions made by 2 different bodies (politics and military) for different reasons with different concerns in mind. It is politics and military not being aligned, but politics has the last word. EDIT: Like screw repair structures, the US has enough Abrahams in storage to just replace every tank that gets dragged across the borders for repairs with a fresh one and not having to worry about repairing it in time. They operate at such a larger scale that fighting over a specific numbers of tanks with them would be so much easier. The EU countries would feel the sting of a couple of hundred leopards going abroad, the US can cough those up without even really noticing. They have been buying the things in part just to keep the production lines open... This is not a debate on what's better for UA, Abrams or Leopards, both should be sent and both probably will be sent. Show nested quote +The ukrainian government is, but they ask for pretty much anything to put pressure on the countries giving aid. The ukrainian military, like in the linked interview, seems to have a different and more nuanced view on the issue. Of course if the choice is between getting nothing and getting any tank, they will pick any tank. There's no disconnect between UA military and UA political leadership. This is entirely made up. Zelenskyy asks for what the generals request. They've been asking for MBTs. We should trust the assessment of the people who have beaten back the Russian invasion with javelins and stingers, and just conducted the most successful combined arms offensive on European soil since WWII (honorable mention to Croatia). As for "complicated logistics", let the Ukrainians worry about that. If they can manage to integrate heavily modified T-55s, with specialized ammo, as Ardias pointed out, we should trust them to know how integrate the best tanks on the planet. Also, notice that we shouldn't be focusing on mothball tanks, the US has also said that the M1s in storage cannot be sent due to their condition. We're talking about sending active service tanks. Just like Poland, Czech Republic, Slovenia and others have sent their active service tanks. And they will purchase new tanks, some via the DE Ringtausch, but these won't be ready for years. But because RU is otherwise engaged in UA, as long as UA continues to do well, NATO countries won't need their tanks. It's a good time to upgrade. So, once again, don't try to armchair general what's good for Ukraine, listen to the Ukrainians, and have the military specialists work on the details.
I like the "let them worry about it" approach. If Ukraine thinks that they can use Leopards well, i see no reason for them not to get any. I am especially confused why we (Germany) don't currently allow other countries to send their Leopards there.
|
And we are already back to not engaging with any sources(especially not the ones directly refuting you) and instead making claims without backing up anything and calling people armchair generals... I am disappointed, but not surprised.
|
Nonetheless, i am of the opinion that Germany should at the very, very least not block other countries from sending their Leopards. Then those countries and Ukraine can figure it out, and none of them can blame us.
|
Please mind the Spanish Leopard fleet isn't the only one that's in a pitiful state, that goes for all of them, even in the motherland. No one expected to use them, you absolutely cannot rely on the numbers of existing tanks on paper.
I'm looking forward to NATOs responses to Putins actions this morning, it should be meaningful. We'll all be wiser in a couple of hours.
|
Flights out of Russia are sold out following Putin's speech announcing partial mobilization.
Russians have purchased all the tickets for direct flights from Russia to Istanbul and Yerevan for 21 September, immediately after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s speech where he announced partial mobilisation of Russian citizens.
This was reported by the Meduza and Verstka news outlets.
"All direct flights for 21 September from Russia to Istanbul and Yerevan were sold out a few minutes after Putin’s speech," they stated.
Source
|
On September 21 2022 21:27 Simberto wrote:
Nonetheless, i am of the opinion that Germany should at the very, very least not block other countries from sending their Leopards. Then those countries and Ukraine can figure it out, and none of them can blame us.
It was never confirmed that Germany blocked the delivery of Leopards. There was unconfirmed speculation that Germany may've blocked the delivery of German tanks, but certainly not those of other countries.
|
On September 21 2022 21:24 Artesimo wrote:
And we are already back to not engaging with any sources(especially not the ones directly refuting you) and instead making claims without backing up anything and calling people armchair generals... I am disappointed, but not surprised.
I mean, the only "engagement" I can see is your source of a Youtube video with a reserve officer from UA saying in July that they don't need 1-2 battalions of Leopards, they need the 100 available T-72s instead. I think we can all agree with the approach: "soviet tanks first, then new modern NATO ones".
But, he doesn't represent the Ukraine General Staff, nor are we still in the situation that was the case in the beginning of July, nor are there significant numbers of soviet tanks to send anymore. It's time to talk about Leopards, and we need to talk about more than 1-2 battalions.
|
On September 21 2022 22:00 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2022 21:27 Simberto wrote:
Nonetheless, i am of the opinion that Germany should at the very, very least not block other countries from sending their Leopards. Then those countries and Ukraine can figure it out, and none of them can blame us. It was never confirmed that Germany blocked the delivery of Leopards. There was unconfirmed speculation that Germany may've blocked the delivery of German tanks, but certainly not those of other countries.
You can check this yourself, Austria has Leopard 2s, send an information request via email to your MoD and ask whether Austria has permission from DE to send their Leopard 2s to Ukraine.
|
|
|
|
|
On September 21 2022 22:45 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2022 21:24 Artesimo wrote:
And we are already back to not engaging with any sources(especially not the ones directly refuting you) and instead making claims without backing up anything and calling people armchair generals... I am disappointed, but not surprised. I mean, the only "engagement" I can see is your source of a Youtube video with a reserve officer from UA saying in July that they don't need 1-2 battalions of Leopards, they need the 100 available T-72s instead. I think we can all agree with the approach: "soviet tanks first, then new modern NATO ones". But, he doesn't represent the Ukraine General Staff, nor are we still in the situation that was the case in the beginning of July, nor are there significant numbers of soviet tanks to send anymore. It's time to talk about Leopards, and we need to talk about more than 1-2 battalions.
Now finally we are engaging with sources.
Yes, we need more than 1-2 battalions (which is what is said in the interview) and my whole argument has been hinging on the fact that I expect it to be difficult and unlikely to get that many tanks given the state of european militaries and the fact that you would require the cooperation of multiple nations to get them together). I am not arguing for more soviet tanks, and don't think that was the point of what is being said. The point was that you need to provide adequate numbers to make up for the additional challenges a new weapon system introduces. You can ask for how many leopard you want, while I rather ask for the tank where it is much more realistic to obtain it in sufficient numbers and where I expect it to be easier to set up and scale up maintenance facilities. The US defence industry complex is massive and in many areas has capacities and capabilities that europe is simply lacking when it comes to volume, which is what is needed in my opinion.
And on the topics of logistics / maintenance, you missed the part where I linked 2 sources that show ukraine is not able to manage the more complex repairs on the PzH but rather have to send them to poland and lithuania, probably due to special facilities / tools being needed.
So yeah, imo its time to talk about the much easier available abrahams where all you need is 1 nation to say 'alright lets do this' rather than end up with a half baked solution of getting ukraine a handful of leopards and some more abrahams that you scrape together from various nations.
On September 21 2022 22:54 JimmiC wrote:
I've been noticing in many of the speeches I've watched that Zelensky and other world leaders have been planting the seeds about modern air defense systems. (Zelensky more directly). Given that Russia has been attacking more and more civilian targets I was wondering if it would be announced shortly but now I'm almost certain it will be. I would not be surprised if they were training on it right now.
I'm expecting (hoping) for a bunch of big announcements today and tomorrow.
Germany is supposed to deliver IRIS-T systems to ukraine within 2022, but I don't think it has happened yet and could not find anything on how close we are to delivery.
|
On September 21 2022 23:07 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2022 22:45 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 21 2022 21:24 Artesimo wrote:
And we are already back to not engaging with any sources(especially not the ones directly refuting you) and instead making claims without backing up anything and calling people armchair generals... I am disappointed, but not surprised. I mean, the only "engagement" I can see is your source of a Youtube video with a reserve officer from UA saying in July that they don't need 1-2 battalions of Leopards, they need the 100 available T-72s instead. I think we can all agree with the approach: "soviet tanks first, then new modern NATO ones". But, he doesn't represent the Ukraine General Staff, nor are we still in the situation that was the case in the beginning of July, nor are there significant numbers of soviet tanks to send anymore. It's time to talk about Leopards, and we need to talk about more than 1-2 battalions. Now finally we are engaging with sources. Yes, we need more than 1-2 battalions (which is what is said in the interview) and my whole argument has been hinging on the fact that I expect it to be difficult and unlikely to get that many tanks given the state of european militaries and the fact that you would require the cooperation of multiple nations to get them together). I am not arguing for more soviet tanks, and don't think that was the point of what is being said. The point was that you need to provide adequate numbers to make up for the additional challenges a new weapon system introduces. You can ask for how many leopard you want, while I rather ask for the tank where it is much more realistic to obtain it in sufficient numbers and where I expect it to be easier to set up and scale up maintenance facilities. The US defence industry complex is massive and in many areas has capacities and capabilities that europe is simply lacking when it comes to volume, which is what is needed in my opinion. And on the topics of logistics / maintenance, you missed the part where I linked 2 sources that show ukraine is not able to manage the more complex repairs on the PzH but rather have to send them to poland and lithuania, probably due to special facilities / tools being needed. So yeah, imo its time to talk about the much easier available abrahams where all you need is 1 nation to say 'alright lets do this' rather than end up with a half baked solution of getting ukraine a handful of leopards and some more abrahams that you scrape together from various nations.
Dude, so you just use the fact that I replied to your request for "engagement" to skip my entire argumentation to rehash the stuff you said which was already countered. How about you engage with what I said, then. Because it already covered what you rehashed here. If UA can make PZH 2000 maintenance work via Poland and Lithuania, we should trust it to make Leopard 2s work.
It's not a debate between this or that tank, UA is willing to accept any kind of MBTs, as long as they get them early.
Stop being armchair general who thinks he knows better than the Ukrainians actually fighting the war.
|
Now the question is if Putin and co were expecting to get numbers from inside the former soviet territories. Not so fast according to those governments that have warned anyone thinking about it.
|
Zurich15364 Posts
On September 21 2022 23:13 Ghanburighan wrote:
Stop being armchair general who thinks he knows better than the Ukrainians actually fighting the war.
Stop being an ass. No one is suggested anything even close to this, and everything posted here was completely reasonable. Besides, the point of a forum is to discuss things. If weren't allowed to express an opinion that isn't mirrored by UA twitter accounts what would be the point?
And you are not the official Ukraine press secretary to TL.net.
|
I've seen arguments that Russia's plan is to annex the occupied areas under Russian law, then threaten nuclear strikes on any Ukrainian forces now 'invading Russia'.
The supposed plan is that by threatening nuclear war Russia could then scare the West into forcing Ukraine to settle for peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/947249440094322739/1022107240955662427/unknown.png)
