Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

MadMike said:
Quite interesting how we went from "Tanks are obsolete, easy pickings for drones and ATGMs" back in April to "Ukraine urgently needs more tanks" 9 months later. This war continues to transform and surprise. I was myself quite sceptical about the future of large infantry pushes supported by tanks and IFVs in this modern era, after Russia suffered terrible loses in the early stage of the war in the push for Kyiv. Trench warfare in 2023 was not what I anticipated.
Click to expand...
Because it's not just about tanks, it's about modern tanks. There is a big difference between soviet trash and modern NATO equipment. A modern western tank is a mega weapon if you can not penetrate it while it kills the enemy from miles away.
MadMike said:
I'm also shocked how NATO countries have been slow to anticipate and react to the change in the Russian posture from blitzkrieg to long, grinding war. There comes a point where a decision has to be made: Are we willing to support Ukraine long term until their victory and if yes, why not give them the tools they need to win earlier?
Click to expand...
NATO anticipated the situation to perfection because this is the exact reason why Russia is not winning. They provided the means to keep the scum losing. As far as why not more, it's because the West, Europe in particular, did not keep enough weapons in storage.

MadMike said:
Ukraine's backers need to change their posture too. Identify what Ukraine needs to win, what of that can be realistically delivered, then provide it in significant (not token) numbers through lend-lease programs and finally but very importantly... ramp up military production significantly in order to replace the equipment donated and allow for continuous deliveries to Ukraine. Then the message might get through to Russia that this war is unwinnable for them. At the moment, they think they can grind Ukraine down and outlast the resolve of the West to support it.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what is happening. The more systems are being made ready the more they are delivered.
 
VorZakone said:
Click to expand...


According to this, around 20-25% of the RA forces are from Wagner. This isn't very good news for Russia as it probably has effects in the chain of command, the forces motivation and morale, possible rivalries between regular forces and Wagners, etc. I imagine there's room for Ukraine to exploit this, from strategic battle planning to propaganda.

Is something relevant happening in the battlefront? From what I understand Bahkmut/Soledar has been a meat grinder for a couple of months now, but I had expected to see some advances from the UA in Kherson, Zaporzhizhia and the Lugansk region by now. Or maybe the winter is making any advances imposible.
 
Not directly related but nevertheless shows what Hungary has turned to:



Actually, when you think about this, it’s even more important for the west to support Ukraine as Hungary might end up outside of Nato/EU in the near future under Russian rule.
 
MadMike said:
Quite interesting how we went from "Tanks are obsolete, easy pickings for drones and ATGMs" back in April to "Ukraine urgently needs more tanks" 9 months later. This war continues to transform and surprise. I was myself quite sceptical about the future of large infantry pushes supported by tanks and IFVs in this modern era, after Russia suffered terrible loses in the early stage of the war in the push for Kyiv. Trench warfare in 2023 was not what I anticipated.
Click to expand...

Tanks are still the best form of protection from enemy fire during offensive maneuvers, until someone comes up with something better tanks won't become obsolete. Also old tanks like the T-72 equipped with just normal steel armor and very limited fire on the move capabilities is not comparable to modern tanks.

MadMike said:
I'm also shocked how NATO countries have been slow to anticipate and react to the change in the Russian posture from blitzkrieg to long, grinding war. There comes a point where a decision has to be made: Are we willing to support Ukraine long term until their victory and if yes, why not give them the tools they need to win earlier? The sooner this ends, the less costly it will be for everyone (including Russia).
Click to expand...

Europe had 8 years to prepare for this after the initial invasion in 2014 and in most countries nothing was done, the politicians that where in power during this time are the ones to blame for this. If Europe would have taken the security threat from Russia seriously back then and built up a trustworthy defense the full scale invasion would probably never have happened and even if it did happen we would at least be able to assist Ukraine properly.
 
In the whole Europe, there are only Leopard tanks? no other country manufacture a decent type of tank?
 
4bars said:
In the whole Europe, there are only Leopard tanks? no other country manufacture a decent type of tank?
Click to expand...
Both the British and the French have a very capable modern tank, but only they use it in Europe.
Half of Europe has a version of the Leopard tank. It’s the NATO war horse. Spare parts and maintenance would be much easier to do if it’s released by the Germans
 
4bars said:
In the whole Europe, there are only Leopard tanks? no other country manufacture a decent type of tank?
Click to expand...
There are others modern tanks like the British Challenger 2 (440 built) and the French Leclerc (700+ built, 450 of those went to UAE) but as you can see they have only been produced in relatively small numbers. There have been over 3600 Leopard 2 tanks built of which around 2000 are in service with European countries so there isn't really any other viable option available in Europe.
 
RoyH1 said:
Both the British and the French have a very capable modern tank, but only they use it in Europe.
Half of Europe has a version of the Leopard tank. It’s the NATO war horse. Spare parts and maintenance would be much easier to do if it’s released by the Germans
Click to expand...

Oh, I understand that it would be easier and probably better quality. And probably it would be better for standardization to have 1 type supply for tanks (Leopard), 1 type of fighters (F-16), 1 type of air defenses, 1 type of armored vehicles, etc... for standardization.

But I am sure that Ukraine would gladly accept brittish and french tanks if the leopard is not coming.

Also, if 10-15 countries decide unilaterally to send their Leopards, I don't think Germany would say a thing. Would look like the bad guy and also would lose money
 
the hea said:
Tanks are still the best form of protection from enemy fire during offensive maneuvers, until someone comes up with something better tanks won't become obsolete. Also old tanks like the T-72 equipped with just normal steel armor and very limited fire on the move capabilities is not comparable to modern tanks.
Click to expand...

It really depends on who is doing the fighting. If one were fighting a global power like the US or China, tanks would be of little use in protecting the opposition since they would simply get obliterated through air power. Fortunately, the Russians are incompetent and increasingly lacking in resources in this regard.
 
Raoul said:
It really depends on who is doing the fighting. If one were fighting a global power like the US or China, tanks would be of little use in protecting the opposition since they would simply get obliterated through air power. Fortunately, the Russians are incompetent and increasingly lacking in resources in this regard.
Click to expand...
No matter what you are being bombed with you still have a higher chance of survival inside a tank compared to any other type of vehicle. If you are fighting the US or China there is probably only one outcome but I still think a tank offers the best protection.
 
the hea said:
No matter what you are being bombed with you still have a higher chance of survival inside a tank compared to any other type of vehicle. If you are fighting the US or China there is probably only one outcome but I still think a tank offers the best protection.
Click to expand...

If fighting the US or China, they would establish air superiority and air supremacy on day one and would easily pick off any military vehicles on the ground. The only way to fight them would be to scatter and form an insurgency as a means to counter the inevitable ground war (such as in Iraq/Afghanistan etc). Armor would be reduced to becoming magnets of death.
 
Last edited:
VorZakone said:
Click to expand...


Its crazy what’s happened there. 2 days into the war, when the airborne troops thought they were in the process of taking those airports around Kiev, I can’t believe he’d have predicted this in his worst nightmares
 
https://nltimes.nl/2023/01/20/netherlands-consider-helping-ukraine-f-16-fighters-leopard-2-tanks

Netherlands would consider helping Ukraine with F-16 fighters, Leopard 2 tanks

The Dutch Cabinet will look into supplying F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine if the Kyiv government asks for it. During a parliamentary debate on Thursday, Minister Wopke Hoekstra of Foreign Affairs said the Cabinet would look at such a request with an “open mind.” In Davos, Minister Kajsa Ollongren of Defense also said that the Netherlands is willing to help pay for modern Leopard 2 tanks that other countries send to Ukraine. “That is certainly something we are willing to do,” she told Bloomberg.
 
Raoul said:
If fighting the US or China, they would establish air superiority and air supremacy on day one and would easily pick off any military vehicles on the ground. The only way to fight them would be to scatter and form an insurgency as a means to counter the inevitable ground war (such as in Iraq/Afghanistan etc). Armor would be reduced to becoming magnets of death.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, that is what the introduction of the AH-64 Apache was thought to have done back during the Gulf War. Nevertheless, it seems that no other country outside of the US/UK/NATO has developped proper tactics with those tank-killing helicopters. If the Russians had more Mi-28 "Havoc" units in the area with a proper tactical approach, I don't think that tanks would stand a chance. But the fact that Ukrainian tanks stand their ground tells me that Russia just don't know what to do with some of that top tier hardware.
 
frostbite said:
https://nltimes.nl/2023/01/20/netherlands-consider-helping-ukraine-f-16-fighters-leopard-2-tanks

Netherlands would consider helping Ukraine with F-16 fighters, Leopard 2 tanks

The Dutch Cabinet will look into supplying F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine if the Kyiv government asks for it. During a parliamentary debate on Thursday, Minister Wopke Hoekstra of Foreign Affairs said the Cabinet would look at such a request with an “open mind.” In Davos, Minister Kajsa Ollongren of Defense also said that the Netherlands is willing to help pay for modern Leopard 2 tanks that other countries send to Ukraine. “That is certainly something we are willing to do,” she told Bloomberg.
Click to expand...

Just a question.
What is or would be the US position regarding foreign customers of its F16 fighter jets being supplied to Ukraine.
And of course, Ukraine has not capabilities of operating that aircraft. Not something you can just jump into and fly it.
 
calodo2003 said:
Click to expand...


For those who remember the final scene from The Charge of the Light Brigade (1968), there was a look of disbelief from the defending Russians seeing the cavalry running in the open and into cannon fire range. This time though, the Russian soldiers are the ones in the same position as the light brigade.
 
Buster15 said:
Just a question.
What is or would be the US position regarding foreign customers of its F16 fighter jets being supplied to Ukraine.
And of course, Ukraine has not capabilities of operating that aircraft. Not something you can just jump into and fly it.
Click to expand...
And even if they where able to operate them they wouldn't have the same capabilities in the hands of the Ukrainians as they have for a NATO country with no AWACS or jamming platforms available to back them up. They would probably be limited to low altitude attack missions only.
 
Buster15 said:
Just a question.
What is or would be the US position regarding foreign customers of its F16 fighter jets being supplied to Ukraine.
And of course, Ukraine has not capabilities of operating that aircraft. Not something you can just jump into and fly it.
Click to expand...

I think the pilots and the mechanics and everybody else involved in these decisions, know much more than any of us about all that, since it is their job, and none of them expects to "just jump into and fly it".

The patriot missiles are also complicated, each costing a billion, but apparently, the US army can train Ukrainians to operate them.

Since there are dozens of countries operating F-16s, I guess the US Air Force can train the Ukrainians, if there is a decision to provide them with F-16s.
 
the hea said:
And even if they where able to operate them they wouldn't have the same capabilities in the hands of the Ukrainians as they have for a NATO country with no AWACS or jamming platforms available to back them up. They would probably be limited to low altitude attack missions only.
Click to expand...

1. I don't think the F-16s require AWACS to operate. At any altitude.

2. NATO AWACS, flying outside Ukraine, have been helping Ukraine since day 1 of this war. NATO is sharing information from satellites, too.

The main problem with F-16s is their maintenance. But already the M777 go to Poland for their maintenance if they have serious problems, I guess the same will happen with the F-16s.
 
The main problem with helping Ukraine is the political decisions of the NATO countries.

If the political decision is taken, the engineers and the specialists can find solutions to the other, technical problems.
 
the hea said:
And even if they where able to operate them they wouldn't have the same capabilities in the hands of the Ukrainians as they have for a NATO country with no AWACS or jamming platforms available to back them up. They would probably be limited to low altitude attack missions only.
Click to expand...

Good points.
 
Perhaps the Patriot missiles was a prerequisite for the F-16s. The F-16s will be most vulnerable while on the ground, they need adequate air defenses.
 
frostbite said:
1. I don't think the F-16s require AWACS to operate. At any altitude.

2. NATO AWACS, flying outside Ukraine, have been helping Ukraine since day 1 of this war. NATO is sharing information from satellites, too.

The main problem with F-16s is their maintenance. But already the M777 go to Poland for their maintenance if they have serious problems, I guess the same will happen with the F-16s.
Click to expand...
1. No aircraft requires AWACS to operate but the radar on an AWACS plane can detect threats at very long ranges which give the fighter pilot time to react.

2. Having NATO AWACS flying outside of Ukraine and looking east is far from the same as having them integrated in a network with the fighters and conducting battle management.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
Interestingly, that is what the introduction of the AH-64 Apache was thought to have done back during the Gulf War. Nevertheless, it seems that no other country outside of the US/UK/NATO has developped proper tactics with those tank-killing helicopters. If the Russians had more Mi-28 "Havoc" units in the area with a proper tactical approach, I don't think that tanks would stand a chance. But the fact that Ukrainian tanks stand their ground tells me that Russia just don't know what to do with some of that top tier hardware.
Click to expand...
It's not that simple. Helicopters are quite vulnerable themselves and Ukraine has a lot of MANPADS to be used against them as well as systems like the Gepard, which is designed specifically to be part of armoured units and defend them against helicopters. It's not about tactics, it's about having unquestioned air superiority which is a prerequisite for helicopters to render tanks obsolete. Without that it's a pretty even fight (as proven by the amount of helicopter losses Russia had so far).
 
frostbite said:
I think the pilots and the mechanics and everybody else involved in these decisions, know much more than any of us about all that, since it is their job, and none of them expects to "just jump into and fly it".

The patriot missiles are also complicated, each costing a billion, but apparently, the US army can train Ukrainians to operate them.

Since there are dozens of countries operating F-16s, I guess the US Air Force can train the Ukrainians, if there is a decision to provide them with F-16s.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
I wasn't trying to be flippant although it may have come across that way....

I am all for the NATO nations supporting Ukraine to be able to defeat Russia.
We need to remember that not that long ago, the US was against Poland loaning their Mig29's, which Ukraine already operates, to Ukraine.

The key issue is precisely what would Ukraine use such F16 for. Air to air or air to ground. Or potentially both because it is a hugely capable jet. As long as can be armed with the necessary weapons.
 
the hea said:
1. No aircraft requires AWACS to operate but the radar on an AWACS plane can detect threats at very long ranges which give the fighter pilot time to react.

2. Having NATO AWACS flying outside of Ukraine and looking east is far from the same as having them integrated in a network with the fighters and conducting battle management.
Click to expand...

Perhaps so, but there is no point in comparing it with the ideal situation. The comparisons are meaningful with their current situation. Currently, Ukrainians have soviet era aircraft, and they are still somewhat successful with them, the F-16s will be a huge improvement to what they have now.
 
the hea said:
1. No aircraft requires AWACS to operate but the radar on an AWACS plane can detect threats at very long ranges which give the fighter pilot time to react.

2. Having NATO AWACS flying outside of Ukraine and looking east is far from the same as having them integrated in a network with the fighters and conducting battle management.
Click to expand...

Correct.
 
Buster15 said:
Fair enough.
I wasn't trying to be flippant although it may have come across that way....

I am all for the NATO nations supporting Ukraine to be able to defeat Russia.
We need to remember that not that long ago, the US was against Poland loaning their Mig29's, which Ukraine already operates, to Ukraine.

The key issue is precisely what would Ukraine use such F16 for. Air to air or air to ground. Or potentially both because it is a hugely capable jet. As long as can be armed with the necessary weapons.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the F-16s can counter the Russian bombers, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.