Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?

I3BrigPvSk said:
Yes, the Ukrainian army is probably much better than the German army. Western made tanks have better protection than their Russian counterparts. Russian/Soviet tanks have a design flaw which make them vulnerable. Western tanks have most likely much better sensors than the Russian tanks. These sensors can even detect the body heat from a huge distance. MBTs are a system which operate with other military units, infantry, artillery, combat engineers, air defense, air support, This is how an army operate. But you have never been in the army so you don't know that.

This has more to do with your attitude toward Slavic when you actually think they are lesser than yourself.
Click to expand...

Proof that the Ukrainian army is ''better '' than the Bundeswehr ?
That Western tanks have better protection than Russian tanks is TOTALLY irrelevant, as in this war tanks do not fight against tanks .Leos failed in Syria and were eliminated by ISIL that had no tanks . WHY would Ukraine need Western tanks ? They could do it without them . There is no such thing as better tanks .
Western tanks are more than 20 years old and were designed to be used against a Soviet attack on West Germany .They are not designed to be used against the Russians in Eastern Ukraine, besides the Ukrainians stopped and repelled the Russians without these Western MBT's .
It is YOU who claims that the Slavic Ukrainians need our help,because they are inferior to us :the truth is that without our help they stopped and repelled the Russians.
''This is how an army operates ":Wrong : this is how Western armies are taught to operate ,and the results in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria are not positive .
There is no universal way for an army how to operate . How an army operates depends also on the geographic and climatological circumstances and on how the opponent operates .
 
About the promises of the Western governments :take the example of Spain:it said that there were in a military base of Saragossa 53 Leo2s in a depot,unused since 10 years and that it could deliver some of them ,maybe 4 or 6 ,but not more,4 or 6 would depend on the condition of these 53 tanks which had to be repaired and that no one could say how long this would last .
53 tanks ,condition unknown ,maybe 4 or maximum 6 can be delivered ,at an unknown date !!!
This is totally ridiculous .
And why takes it months to repair tanks that have not been used ?
About the claim that an army operates with tanks ,cooperating with mechanized infantry and artillery and air support :was ISIS operating in that way, did the Taliban operate in that way, did the VC operate in that way ,did the army of Assad operate in that way, did the IRA operate in that way ?
Did the Russians fight in that way last year ,did the Ukrainians fight in that way last year ?
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
Yes, the Ukrainian army is probably much better than the German army. Western made tanks have better protection than their Russian counterparts. Russian/Soviet tanks have a design flaw which make them vulnerable. Western tanks have most likely much better sensors than the Russian tanks. These sensors can even detect the body heat from a huge distance. MBTs are a system which operate with other military units, infantry, artillery, combat engineers, air defense, air support, This is how an army operate. But you have never been in the army so you don't know that.

This has more to do with your attitude toward Slavic when you actually think they are lesser than yourself.
Click to expand...

When we trained in Germany with the Bundeswehr they were quite good, in fact I'd suggest very good, but that was over 30 years ago, so have standards dropped or are they as good as they were?

As for the Ukrainians, in my opinion they are excellent soldiers, to coin a phrase ''Bloody good fighters.'' Putin has been a total pillock trying to take them on. I wonder if Ukraine will apply to join NATO after this ''Putins debacle?''

The Challenger 2 tanks have been fitted with a very good bit of kit, not found (as far as I am aware) in any other tank,

One of the standout elements of Britain’s Challenger 2 tank which is being deployed to Ukraine is a kettle that allows for tea on the go, according to a commander.

It sounds like a quintessentially British feature to satiate soldiers’ thirst for a brew wherever they are in the world, but the “boiling vessel” is important in maintaining the morale and wellbeing of the crew, said Justin Crump, a former British Army commander who used the Challenger 2 during operations in Iraq in 2003-4.

He told i: “The loader looks after this feature, unique to British tanks, and it allows the crew to be sustained with hot drinks and also boil-in-the-bag rations without having to park and leave the vehicle.:thumb:
 
Last edited:
From NBC ( very establishment ) January 20 2023
Top US officials don't want to give Ukraine tanks despite German pressure .
''Officials say both Defense Secretary Austin and Joint Chiefs Chair Milley are against it .
Milley and Austin have cited how long it takes to train personnel to operate the tanks and how difficult the tanks are to maintain .They aso have argued they are not the right vehicles for the fight in Ukraine right now,according to the officials .
Pentagon Press Secretary Brig,General Patrick Ryder said : ''We are not going to have anything additional to provide .''
A spokesman of the National Security Council said the Abrams tanks are '' very expensive to operate, very expensive to fuel , very expensive to maintain and [ require ] a lot of training .''

Given
1 that the US Secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that the Abrams tank is not the right vehicle for the fight in Ukraine
2 that the Spanish government said that 53 unused Leo2s in a depot would result in only 4 or 6 operational Leo2s,after several months
we can safely conclude that the promises of the West are only empty promises to hide
a that these tanks are useless
or
b that they do not want to send any tanks
or
c that they do not want to send any tanks because these are worthless
or
d that they refused to make these tanks operational because they do not want to send them .
We could also conclude that these tanks were only good for the bank accounts of Rheinmetall and General Dynamics .
 
lljadw said:
From NBC ( very establishment ) January 20 2023
Top US officials don't want to give Ukraine tanks despite German pressure .
''Officials say both Defense Secretary Austin and Joint Chiefs Chair Milley are against it .
Milley and Austin have cited how long it takes to train personnel to operate the tanks and how difficult the tanks are to maintain .They aso have argued they are not the right vehicles for the fight in Ukraine right now,according to the officials .
Pentagon Press Secretary Brig,General Patrick Ryder said : ''We are not going to have anything additional to provide .''
A spokesman of the National Security Council said the Abrams tanks are '' very expensive to operate, very expensive to fuel , very expensive to maintain and [ require ] a lot of training .''

Given
1 that the US Secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that the Abrams tank is not the right vehicle for the fight in Ukraine
2 that the Spanish government said that 53 unused Leo2s in a depot would result in only 4 or 6 operational Leo2s,after several months
we can safely conclude that the promises of the West are only empty promises to hide
a that these tanks are useless
or
b that they do not want to send any tanks
or
c that they do not want to send any tanks because these are worthless
or
d that they refused to make these tanks operational because they do not want to send them .
We could also conclude that these tanks were only good for the bank accounts of Rheinmetall and General Dynamics .
Click to expand...

I do not agree most of the time with this man, but he does make a good point from what I understand/read/heard of the operating requirements of the Abrhams, running costs, crew training and basically general logistics required for the vehicle.
 
lljadw said:
Proof that the Ukrainian army is ''better '' than the Bundeswehr ?
That Western tanks have better protection than Russian tanks is TOTALLY irrelevant, as in this war tanks do not fight against tanks .Leos failed in Syria and were eliminated by ISIL that had no tanks . WHY would Ukraine need Western tanks ? They could do it without them . There is no such thing as better tanks .
Western tanks are more than 20 years old and were designed to be used against a Soviet attack on West Germany .They are not designed to be used against the Russians in Eastern Ukraine, besides the Ukrainians stopped and repelled the Russians without these Western MBT's .
It is YOU who claims that the Slavic Ukrainians need our help,because they are inferior to us :the truth is that without our help they stopped and repelled the Russians.
''This is how an army operates ":Wrong : this is how Western armies are taught to operate ,and the results in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria are not positive .
There is no universal way for an army how to operate . How an army operates depends also on the geographic and climatological circumstances and on how the opponent operates .
Click to expand...

The Ukrainian military is battle proven, the German is not and all the years of underfunding and having the defense budget under the 2% of the GDP has depleted the German military. It will take years for it to recover from it.

All tanks are based upon the trinity of firepower, mobility, and protection. Western tanks have a better protection than Russian tanks and the Russian tanks have the ammunition in a carusel between the chassi and the turret and that is a huge weakness. MBTs are also used as direct fire support. The western tanks (Abrams, Leopard, Challenger) have all been upgraded through times. There is huge difference between the first versions of them to the latest. To say there is no such thing as a better tank is wrong.

And yet you show you don't know the difference between asymmetric wars and symmetric wars which also indicate you have never been in military nor at a defense college/university.
 
BritinBritain said:
When we trained in Germany with the Bundeswehr they were quite good, in fact I'd suggest very good, but that was over 30 years ago, so have standards dropped or are they as good as they were?

As for the Ukrainians, in my opinion they are excellent soldiers, to coin a phrase ''Bloody good fighters.'' Putin has been a total pillock trying to take them on. I wonder if Ukraine will apply to join NATO after this ''Putins debacle?''

The Challenger 2 tanks have been fitted with a very good bit of kit, not found (as far as I am aware) in any other tank,

One of the standout elements of Britain’s Challenger 2 tank which is being deployed to Ukraine is a kettle that allows for tea on the go, according to a commander.

It sounds like a quintessentially British feature to satiate soldiers’ thirst for a brew wherever they are in the world, but the “boiling vessel” is important in maintaining the morale and wellbeing of the crew, said Justin Crump, a former British Army commander who used the Challenger 2 during operations in Iraq in 2003-4.

He told i: “The loader looks after this feature, unique to British tanks, and it allows the crew to be sustained with hot drinks and also boil-in-the-bag rations without having to park and leave the vehicle.:thumb:
Click to expand...

The major issue I have with giving the Ukrainians all three different tanks is the Ukrainians get a logistical nightmare and with all the different IFVs and APCs they get add to the problems. But the Ukrainians have been pretty to adjust and use western made weapons. The Challenger doesn't have the same maingun and the Abram and Leo, which means it cannot fire the same ammunition, that is a logistical problem.

The German military has been underfunded since the end of the cold war and it will take a very long time for the German armed forces to recover from it. The Ukrainians have a really good army, but it was helped by the incompetence by the Russian forces, The Ukrainians have something to fight for, the Russians have not.

Abrams major problem is the turbine engine, it is a multi-fueled engine, but it creates logistical problems. The US forces got fuel problems during the second Gulf war, they managed to solve it, but it took time for them to fix it. Besides that, it is a good MBT and it has been tested during the dual gulf war when it faced T-72s

I have wondered what the Ukrainians will do with the tanks. Will they use the Leopards, the Challenger, and the Abrams in one unit or will they operate separate, the latter would be better for the supplies. They will also get Bradleys and they will most likely be the mech inf with the tanks. They will also get the CV90 and they have already different western APCs

Something I noticed when I saw the Russian tanks is several of them have IR instead of termistic sights. IR sights were obsolete in the 1980s. Another bad thing with Russian tanks is the slow reverse speed, which making shoot and regroup more difficult
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
The Ukrainian military is battle proven, the German is not and all the years of underfunding and having the defense budget under the 2% of the GDP has depleted the German military. It will take years for it to recover from it.

All tanks are based upon the trinity of firepower, mobility, and protection. Western tanks have a better protection than Russian tanks and the Russian tanks have the ammunition in a carusel between the chassi and the turret and that is a huge weakness. MBTs are also used as direct fire support. The western tanks (Abrams, Leopard, Challenger) have all been upgraded through times. There is huge difference between the first versions of them to the latest. To say there is no such thing as a better tank is wrong.

And yet you show you don't know the difference between asymmetric wars and symmetric wars which also indicate you have never been in military nor at a defense college/university.
Click to expand...

The difference between asymmetric and symmetric wars is totally unimportant for the discussion if Leos and Abrams are fitted to fight in Ukraine :
US Secretary of Defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs said that the Abrams are not fitted to fight in Ukraine .
If the Leos failed in the fight against ISIS,why should they succeed in the fight against the Russians ?
It is the same for the Leos :Spain has 53 Leos (older than 20 years and who were not used ) in a depot in Saragossa . Spain said that it could (after at least 10 weeks ) make operational only 10 % of them at a cost of 500000 Euro per tank .This means that the other 90 % are totally worthless, or that Spain wants to give only 4/6 tanks .
Or the promises from Spain are lies, or they have no operational tanks .Or both .
In 1975 a regiment of the Belgian army used still Patton tanks (half of the number they had, the others were used to be cannibalized,as spare parts were no loner available . ) There was a depot not far away with new Leo1s, but they could not use them,as long as there were some Pattons operational .
And, if there was a war,no one was trained to use the Leos and these Leos had to be first repaired .
The story is very similar to that of the Spanish Leo2s .
 
About the underfunding of the German military :I doubt that this is the major problem ,as the biggest mistake was to abolish conscription and to replace the 550000 men strong Bundeswehr with a much to small Bundeswehr of professionals :total strength in 2022 184000 of which only 63000 for the ground forces ( less than Britain )
The reserves are 30000 men only ,while before 1990 the reserves were several million men : 100 times more .
Even if the Defense Budget is increased from 1,3 % of the GDP today to 2 %, Germany can never have a professional army of 550000 men .
The only way for Germany and the other countries on the continent to have a bigger army is to reintroduce conscription :if Ukraine had only a small army of professionals without reserves, it was doomed .
 
lljadw said:
The difference between asymmetric and symmetric wars is totally unimportant for the discussion if Leos and Abrams are fitted to fight in Ukraine :
US Secretary of Defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs said that the Abrams are not fitted to fight in Ukraine .
If the Leos failed in the fight against ISIS,why should they succeed in the fight against the Russians ?
It is the same for the Leos :Spain has 53 Leos (older than 20 years and who were not used ) in a depot in Saragossa . Spain said that it could (after at least 10 weeks ) make operational only 10 % of them at a cost of 500000 Euro per tank .This means that the other 90 % are totally worthless, or that Spain wants to give only 4/6 tanks .
Or the promises from Spain are lies, or they have no operational tanks .Or both .
In 1975 a regiment of the Belgian army used still Patton tanks (half of the number they had, the others were used to be cannibalized,as spare parts were no loner available . ) There was a depot not far away with new Leo1s, but they could not use them,as long as there were some Pattons operational .
And, if there was a war,no one was trained to use the Leos and these Leos had to be first repaired .
The story is very similar to that of the Spanish Leo2s .
Click to expand...

No, the Ukraine war is a pretty good war for using tanks when it is a symmetric war and the terrain is suited for mechanized warfare . The Ukrainians want western tanks because they are running out of Russian made equipment. Ukraine will be losing a war of attrition and need better equipment than what the Russians have. We focus a lot on the MBTs, but the artillery (HIMARS, MLRS, Archer, CEASAR, etc and the mechanized/motorized infantry with tank support will do a great job if they get there in time.

One major concern about the tanks is, the west don't want any of these tanks to fall into Russian hands. If the Belgian army did something like that. It is not an add for the Belgian armed forces.
 
Last edited:
So with all the MBTs, IFVs, APCs, self propelled howitzers, MLRS, HIMARS, and all of the other stuff the Ukrainians already have and what they are expecting to get. Are the Ukrainians plan to use them in a brigade battlegroup to counter attack in the south to cut of the Russian supply lines to Crimea or will they use them in Donbas? Another option is in the north of Donbas. The Russian seem to be preparing for a major push, but can they do that? The artillery (HIMARS, MLRS) have smashed the Russian supply hubs before prior their offensives in the Kherson region and in the Kharkiv region.

Crimea is more vulnerable than the Donbas if the Ukrainians are able to hit the Russian supply lines across the Kerch bridge and the supply routes from Donbas to Crimea
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
The major issue I have with giving the Ukrainians all three different tanks is the Ukrainians get a logistical nightmare and with all the different IFVs and APCs they get add to the problems. But the Ukrainians have been pretty to adjust and use western made weapons. The Challenger doesn't have the same maingun and the Abram and Leo, which means it cannot fire the same ammunition, that is a logistical problem.

The German military has been underfunded since the end of the cold war and it will take a very long time for the German armed forces to recover from it. The Ukrainians have a really good army, but it was helped by the incompetence by the Russian forces, The Ukrainians have something to fight for, the Russians have not.

Abrams major problem is the turbine engine, it is a multi-fueled engine, but it creates logistical problems. The US forces got fuel problems during the second Gulf war, they managed to solve it, but it took time for them to fix it. Besides that, it is a good MBT and it has been tested during the dual gulf war when it faced T-72s

I have wondered what the Ukrainians will do with the tanks. Will they use the Leopards, the Challenger, and the Abrams in one unit or will they operate separate, the latter would be better for the supplies. They will also get Bradleys and they will most likely be the mech inf with the tanks. They will also get the CV90 and they have already different western APCs

Something I noticed when I saw the Russian tanks is several of them have IR instead of termistic sights. IR sights were obsolete in the 1980s. Another bad thing with Russian tanks is the slow reverse speed, which making shoot and regroup more difficult
Click to expand...

I've been out of touch with the various militaries for a few years now and have therefore lost a lot of up to date knowledge. I was however, surprised to hear that the Challenger 2 main gun doesn't fire the same ammunition as the Leopard2 and Abrahams, I've always thought such an alliance are equipped with same calibre/type ammunition, someone dropped the ball or was it deliberate.

It would make sense from a logistics point of view that Challenger2 and other Leopards and Abrahams types fights as a unit, unencumbered with other types ammunition/fuel/stores.

I actually wonder if Ukraine will apply to join NATO when the dust has settled.
 
BritinBritain said:
I've been out of touch with the various militaries for a few years now and have therefore lost a lot of up to date knowledge. I was however, surprised to hear that the Challenger 2 main gun doesn't fire the same ammunition as the Leopard2 and Abrahams, I've always thought such an alliance are equipped with same calibre/type ammunition, someone dropped the ball or was it deliberate.

It would make sense from a logistics point of view that Challenger2 and other Leopards and Abrahams types fights as a unit, unencumbered with other types ammunition/fuel/stores.

I actually wonder if Ukraine will apply to join NATO when the dust has settled.
Click to expand...

I don't know why the Challenger has a rifled maingun while the Abrams and the Leos have smoothbore guns. The Challenger uses HESH rounds to destroy other vehicles. The HESH round doesn't penetrate the target's armor, instead it smears a plastic explosives on the vehicle which generate a shockwave through the armour and creates fragments inside the vehicle.

The Challenger tank was a good tank during the first Gulf war and a C1 has the world record of the longest tank vs tank kill. The first gulf war was a huge logistical undertaking to transport all the American and the British equipment from Europe to Saudi Arabia.

Is the tank obsolete? If tanks operate without infantry, artillery, air defense, air support the tanks will pay dearly for it. The Russian have learned it the hard way, but they should have learned before this war. They did the same during the wars in Chechnya and in Georgia. The Turks did the same mistake in Syria. Tanks have been the main attacking force with support of the infantry and the artillery. I think the doctrine has now changed to be back to what tanks did during the first world war, supporting the infantry. The Chinese had an exercise with tanks, mech inf, and artillery. They had changed the MO during the exercise.

The western made tanks will contribute to the Ukrainian military, but the IFVs, APCs, and the artillery provided will also contribute to the UKrainians war effort.
 
I was watching a documentary on TV regarding the Challenger 1 and Challenger 2. Apparently the Challenger 2 is such a different vehicle to the Challenger 1, Challenger 2 should have been given a totally new designation. I am aware that Challenger 2 is going to be either replaced or upgraded to Challenger 3 with a 120mm smooth bore gun state-of-the-art, firing multi-purpose and programmable ammunition.

Its getting even more scary then in my day. In my day if the enemy couldn't see you, theres a good chance they couldn't kill you, today its getting bloody silly
 
BritinBritain said:
I was watching a documentary on TV regarding the Challenger 1 and Challenger 2. Apparently the Challenger 2 is such a different vehicle to the Challenger 1, Challenger 2 should have been given a totally new designation. I am aware that Challenger 2 is going to be either replaced or upgraded to Challenger 3 with a 120mm smooth bore gun state-of-the-art, firing multi-purpose and programmable ammunition.

Its getting even more scary then in my day. In my day if the enemy couldn't see you, theres a good chance they couldn't kill you, today its getting bloody silly
Click to expand...

The Challenger 3 will be competitive to the Leos and after the reluctance of the German government to allow other countries to send the Leos to Ukraine the C3 will be an alternative. I have always liked the Israeli Merkava when it is a combination between a MBT and an IFV. That is a tank that prioritize protection and the survivability of the crew.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
The Challenger 3 will be competitive to the Leos and after the reluctance of the German government to allow other countries to send the Leos to Ukraine the C3 will be an alternative. I have always liked the Israeli Merkava when it is a combination between a MBT and an IFV. That is a tank that prioritize protection and the survivability of the crew.
Click to expand...

I think the C3 competitiveness will depend on the UK's readiness to let people ship its tanks around and I still regard the Merkava as untested, it is impossible to rate it against combat tested tanks when it hasn't seen any significant combat of its own.
I don't think you can consider Palestinian kids throwing rocks, the odd RPG round and one or two 50 year old Soviet ATGMs as a true test.
 
MontyB said:
I think the C3 competitiveness will depend on the UK's readiness to let people ship its tanks around and I still regard the Merkava as untested, it is impossible to rate it against combat tested tanks when it hasn't seen any significant combat of its own.
I don't think you can consider Palestinian kids throwing rocks, the odd RPG round and one or two 50 year old Soviet ATGMs as a true test.
Click to expand...

Even if the Norwegians bought the Leo2 recently. The German reluctance to allow other countries to send weapons made in Germany to Ukraine can ruin their own defense industry. The C3 can be an alternative to the Leo.

The Merkava is interesting when it is a combination, the Mark I faced Syrian T-72s in the Bekaa Valley, but that was in the early 1980s. The Mark IV and V will most likely never meet other modern MBTs. The Egyptians have a version of the Abrams so theoretically the two can meet one day. It is more likely the Israelis will meet the Syrians again and they have more modern Russian MBTs. The Russian tanks have the design flaw, but they have decent IFVs and APCs. The older versions of them have problems with the transmission.

I read the Ukrainians get new munition to the HIMARS and MLRS which can reach further. I also think the Ukrainian war effort will benefit a lot with the Bradleys and the CV90 working side by side with MBTs and modern artillery
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
Even if the Norwegians bought the Leo2 recently. The German reluctance to allow other countries to send weapons made in Germany to Ukraine can ruin their own defense industry. The C3 can be an alternative to the Leo.

The Merkava is interesting when it is a combination, the Mark I faced Syrian T-72s in the Bekaa Valley, but that was in the early 1980s. The Mark IV and V will most likely never meet other modern MBTs. The Egyptians have a version of the Abrams so theoretically the two can meet one day. It is more likely the Israelis will meet the Syrians again and they have more modern Russian MBTs. The Russian tanks have the design flaw, but they have decent IFVs and APCs. The older versions of them have problems with the transmission.

I read the Ukrainians get new munition to the HIMARS and MLRS which can reach further. I also think the Ukrainian war effort will benefit a lot with the Bradleys and the CV90 working side by side with MBTs and modern artillery
Click to expand...

I am not certain how much faith I would have in an export version of a Russian tank with inherent design flaws, put it this way, if that was my choice I would be volunteering for the artillery as soon as possible.

Is Norway really tank country?
My very short visit a few years ago didn't extend to the great plains of Norway, my impression is that they could get away with shouting really loudly and burying the opposition in avalanches.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
I am not certain how much faith I would have in an export version of a Russian tank with inherent design flaws, put it this way, if that was my choice I would be volunteering for the artillery as soon as possible.

Is Norway really tank country?
My very short visit a few years ago didn't extend to the great plains of Norway, my impression is that they could get away with shouting really loudly and burying the opposition in avalanches.
Click to expand...

Red is probably better to answer that question, but I would say Norway isn't suited for tanks. Norway will give some of their Leos to Ukraine
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top