War In Ukraine

[athos]

They don't have much time there for Ukraine, they say,  "sex workers" storm Davos like never before                                                                   

 

Edited January 18, 2023 by athos

[athos]

America's patriotic version of the Sacred war.                                                                                                     

This is very inspirational, epic and motivational.

 

Edited January 18, 2023 by athos

[Moonbox]

Putin is the world's greatest statesman.  

Edited January 18, 2023 by Moonbox

[BeaverFever]

The Atlantic says it succinctly:

 

THE GREATEST NUCLEAR THREAT WE FACE IS A RUSSIAN VICTORY

Putin’s blackmail is dangerous; its success would be even worse.
 

…

The invasion of Ukraine has been accompanied from the outset by Russian threats to use nuclear weapons. A few days after the war began, President Vladimir Putin complained that “NATO countries are making aggressive statements about our country” and warned that, as a result, Russia’s nuclear forces would be moved to “a special regime of combat duty.” No apparent change in operational readiness followed that warning. But in state-controlled news media, the almost-daily threats to use nuclear weapons have become central to Russian propaganda, seeking to inspire fear in NATO countries, discourage NATO forces from entering the war, and limit the supply of military assistance to Ukraine. 
 

This Russian propaganda has been amplified and endorsed by an unusual assortment of people in the United States, including the Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Democratic Socialists of America, and the Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs. The propaganda absolves Russia, blames the United States for the war, and has four main tenets: first, that a long-standing American effort to bring Ukraine into NATO poses a grave threat to Russian security. Second, that American shipments of weapons to Ukraine have prolonged the fighting and caused needless suffering among civilians. Third, that American support for Ukraine is just a pretext for seeking the destruction of Russia. And, finally, that American policies could soon prove responsible for causing an all-out nuclear war.

Those arguments are based on lies. They are being spread to justify Russia’s unprecedented use of nuclear blackmail to seize territory from a neighboring state. Concerns about a possible nuclear exchange have thus far deterred the United States and NATO from providing Ukraine with the tanks, aircraft, and long-range missiles that might change the course of the war. If nuclear threats or the actual use of nuclear weapons leads to the defeat of Ukraine, Russia may use them to coerce other states. Tactics once considered immoral and unthinkable might become commonplace. Nuclear weapons would no longer be regarded solely as a deterrent of last resort; the nine countries that possess them would gain even greater influence; countries that lack them would seek to obtain them; and the global risk of devastating wars would increase exponentially.

That is why the greatest nuclear threat we face is a Russian victory in Ukraine

….

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/01/russias-invasion-ukraine-war-nuclear-weapon-nato/672727/

[SpankyMcFarland]

Good news if true:

Quote

Germany to send Leopard tanks to Kyiv - reports

German chancellor Olaf Scholz has decided to send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraineand allow other countries such as Poland to do so while the US may supply Abrams tanks, magazine Spiegel has reported.

A government spokesperson declined to comment. The defence ministry was not immediately available for comment, Reuters reported.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/jan/24/russia-ukraine-war-live-zelenskiy-flags-more-changes-in-corruption-purge-german-defence-group-offers-to-send-tanks-if-needed

 

Edited January 24, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

Here is another link:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-send-leopard-tanks-kyiv-allow-others-do-so-spiegel-2023-01-24/

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

Does the US have nothing else to send other than Abrams tanks? With their fuel requirements they seem highly impractical on that front. What about something more like the Leopard? 

[Moonbox]

The Leopard and the Abrams are fairly similar in capability.  The US built the Abrams and operates that, and having something like the Leopard would not only be redundant, but logistically wasteful.  

Sending the Abrams to Ukraine is probably also wasteful, as a turbine-powered vehicle hungry for jet fuel is not ideal for a poverty-stricken country whose logistics systems are already under heavy attack.  I suspect if the Abrams does go to Ukraine, they'll be in limited number and get parked symbolically around Kiev to deter attacks from Belarus.  

The Leopard 2 is a much better option.  Like with the Challenger, Abrams tanks to Ukraine is likely just a gesture meant to exhaust German excuses for dragging their heels on their machine.  

[Aristides]

Diesel is close to jet fuel so the Abrams may be able to use it. You can run older diesels on Jet A1.

The Abrams is more difficult to maintain, Ease of maintenance is a reason the Leopard is so popular, a Leopard engine can be replaced in 30 minutes with the proper equipment.

[Dougie93]

59 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Diesel is close to jet fuel so the Abrams may be able to use it. You can run older diesels on Jet A1.

The Abrams is more difficult to maintain, Ease of maintenance is a reason the Leopard is so popular, a Leopard engine can be replaced in 30 minutes with the proper equipment.

the Abrams is not really harder to maintain than the Leopard 2

 the Honeywell AT1500 engine is quite reliable, it's battle proven in the harshest conditions ( Arabian dessert )

it's also multi fuel, it can run on diesel, marine diesel, gasoline, or jet fuel

Abrams is also stealthy, we used to call them "whispering death" because the engine is so quiet

in case of both tanks, the advantage is the thermal sights with the Rheinmetall RH120/L44 gun

both Arbams & Leopard can see and shoot Russian tanks beyond the range which the Russians can see & shoot

also, don't underestimate the British Challenger 2 being sent as well

the British L30 CHARM rifled gun is longest ranged in NATO

Challenger 2 holds the world record longest ranged tank kill in Iraq, at 5,100 meters

Challenger 2 also has the heaviest frontal armour of any NATO MBT

[Aristides]

Apparently the Brits have never lost a Challenger to enemy fire. In Iraq, one survived hits by 14 RPG's, a Milan anti tank missile and was back in action 6 hours later even though it threw its tracks when it backed into a ditch. Another survived 70 RPG hits.

 

As we have seen how effective suicide drones have been, top armour has all of a sudden become very important. I don't know how they rate.

[Moonbox]

3 hours ago, Aristides said:

Diesel is close to jet fuel so the Abrams may be able to use it. You can run older diesels on Jet A1.

The Abrams is more difficult to maintain, Ease of maintenance is a reason the Leopard is so popular, a Leopard engine can be replaced in 30 minutes with the proper equipment.

I doubt you want to run diesel through a multi-million dollar vehicle that runs on a turbine engine.  Maybe it would work in a pinch, but you probably gunk up the engine and even if it did work, it apparently guzzles fuel.

 

[Aristides]

14 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I doubt you want to run diesel through a multi-million dollar vehicle that runs on a turbine engine.  Maybe it would work in a pinch, but you probably gunk up the engine and even if it did work, it apparently guzzles fuel.

 

One reason you can't use jet fuel in newer diesels is the sulphur content is too high and destroys the particulate filters and converters used for emission controls. It would depend on the quality of local diesel fuel.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Aristides

[Moonbox]

I don't know anything about that, but I imagine if the diesel was a good option they'd use that over the jet fuel. 

Where are comrade athos and little comrade cadet nationalist ?    

[Aristides]

3600 Leopard 2's have been built, if every country that operates  them sent 10% of their fleet that would make a nice little tank army.

[Moonbox]

I don't think we'll get anywhere near that anytime soon, but one can hope.  The piecemeal and slow-roll trickling of equipment is costing lives.  

[Aristides]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/european-court-human-rights-mh17-netherlands-russia-1.6725325

 

Quote

Among other things, the Court found that areas in eastern Ukraine in separatist hands were, from 11 May 2014 and up to at least 26 January 2022, under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation," the court said in a ruling on Wednesday.

 

Quote

The court's finding that Moscow did control pro-Russian forces in Ukraine mirrors a Dutch court ruling last November that Moscow had "overall control" over the forces of the Donetsk People's Republic in Eastern Ukraine from mid-May 2014.

 

So much for the assertion that Ukrainians were shelling their own people in Donetsk.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Aristides

[Dougie93]

one thing to note is that the logistical burden of the Abrams is overstated by the media and on the internet

"ZOMG gas turbine !"

yes, the Abrams burns more fuel by the minute

but it's not like the Leopard is a plug in hybrid, the Leopard burns plenty of fuel too

its not such a difference as to make the Abrams inferior

and in fact, the Abrams carries more fuel than the Leopard 2

so even burning fuel faster, the Abrams actually has a longer operational range

Abrams goes 265 miles on a tank of gas, Leopard 2 only goes 210 miles

meanwhile the Abrams has depleted uranium reinforced armour

which adds significantly better protection than Leo 2

if I had to pick a tank to go into battle with, I'm going with Abrams

M829A1 APFSDS depleted uranium ammo & depleted uranium armour ftw

Edited January 26, 2023 by Dougie93

[Moonbox]

I don't think anyone is arguing the Abrams is a bad tank, or that the Leo 2 is better.  In what basically amounts to a third-world country, I simply imagine that trying to add and integrate jet fuel logistics alongside the already-existing diesel would be more challenging. 

From what I understand, the armor protection for both the Leo 2 and the Abrams are mostly classified, so we don't actually have a lot of good statistics on which is better. 

In terms of cooperation with Ukraine, there are more NATO members running Leo 2's than Abrams, which makes forming a coalition of willing donaters much easier.  

[Dougie93]

On 1/24/2023 at 4:05 PM, Moonbox said:

The Leopard and the Abrams are fairly similar in capability.  The US built the Abrams and operates that, and having something like the Leopard would not only be redundant, but logistically wasteful.  

Sending the Abrams to Ukraine is probably also wasteful, as a turbine-powered vehicle hungry for jet fuel is not ideal for a poverty-stricken country whose logistics systems are already under heavy attack.  I suspect if the Abrams does go to Ukraine, they'll be in limited number and get parked symbolically around Kiev to deter attacks from Belarus.  

The Leopard 2 is a much better option.  Like with the Challenger, Abrams tanks to Ukraine is likely just a gesture meant to exhaust German excuses for dragging their heels on their machine.  

I'd say the opposite

the Leo 2 that the Ukrainians are getting is the Leo 2A4 version

the Abrams is superior to the older Leo 2A4

I'd expect the better armoured Abrams firing the much more lethal ammo would be used to protect Leo 2A4's

[Dougie93]

45 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I don't think anyone is arguing the Abrams is a bad tank, or that the Leo 2 is better.  In what basically amounts to a third-world country, I simply imagine that trying to add and integrate jet fuel logistics alongside the already-existing diesel would be more challenging.

NATO is going to have to supply the Ukrainians with massive amounts of logistical support either way

so I'd say the logistics  argument is moot

if the Ukrainians are going to mount a counteroffensive with NATO tanks, NATO will have to provide the logistics therein

the difference between Abrams, Challenger & Leopard in terms of Ukrainian logistics is irrelevant

they can't support any of them without NATO picking up the tab

Edited January 26, 2023 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

8 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

From what I understand, the armor protection for both the Leo 2 and the Abrams are mostly classified, so we don't actually have a lot of good statistics on which is better.

both tanks use the same NATO Chobham composite armour

except Abrams goes one step further by adding depleted uranium plates to the Chobham

there's your relevant statistic

[Dougie93]

31 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I don't think anyone is arguing the Abrams is a bad tank, or that the Leo 2 is better. 

I'm not saying Leo 2 is bad

but again, the Ukrainians are not getting the latest version Leo 2's

they are getting Leo 2A4's, which are the oldest and least capable version of Leo 2

M1A1 Abrams is the better tank than Leo2A4, better sights, better armour, with much more lethal ammo

the only reason the Poles are willing to give their Leo2A4's to Ukraine

is that Poland is replacing Leo 2 with Abrams

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2023/01/04/poland-signs-deal-to-buy-2nd-batch-of-us-abrams-tanks/

Edited January 26, 2023 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

spare parts is a vastly bigger issue than fuel anyways

and the Pentagon has way more spare parts available than Germany does

the Germans have difficulties supporting their own armoured fleets, never mind supporting Ukraine's

the logistical economies of scale in America dwarfs all of Europe's defense industries combined

if logistics is your problem, Europe can't help you,

America is a logistics superpower first & foremost

[Dougie93]

9 hours ago, Aristides said:

3600 Leopard 2's have been built, if every country that operates  them sent 10% of their fleet that would make a nice little tank army.

training is the limiting factor

the Ukrainians are being given one or two squadrons of tanks at a time

because that's how many tank crews that are available to be trained at a time

they won't have the crews to operate 360 NATO tanks, that will take months