The one railcar has a t72. Still the mainstay of the russian army none of them really could touch an abrams or a challenger.
Finally some offensive armour.
Apparently these are east-germany tanks, that were sold to sweden, then sweden sold them to a private company that has sold them to Ukraine. One way to build NATO deniability
BMP-1s, but I'd assume they have been modernized a bit.. at least I hope so.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Russia/Ukraine conflict
- Thread starter amolina
- Start date
Finally some offensive armour.
Apparently these are east-germany tanks, that were sold to sweden, then sweden sold them to a private company that has sold them to Ukraine. One way to build NATO deniability
BMP-1s, but I'd assume they have been modernized a bit.. at least I hope so.
IMO tanks are offensive if being used in your country to repel an invading army. Unless/until a column of them are rolling across your border with a neighboring country. Of course Russian propagandists and useful idiots in the west will claim they are offensive weapons, but they claim that for any weapons being fired at them.
I hope NATO is working feverishly on supplying a mix of advanced weapons sufficient for Ukraine to push the occupying Russian forces out of the southern coastal territory the Russians now occupy. Defeating another key objective of the invasion.
Tiger
Active Member
What NATO should do is supply a slippery slope of growing scale of offensive equipment. Start with a huge volume of lowest offensiveness and gradually increasing the level of offensiveness of the provided equipment. This is the slippery slope strategy Russia is using and they were successfull with in Crimea ("wasn'nt us", "oh, it was us"), so NATO can use the same, "We sent only small guns." and when Russia complains against that and gets ignored because they are small guns, send in the big guns and ignore them all the same. Ah, and it wasn't NATO, it was a swedish private company, use that too, Crimea also was invaded by private militias.
That is halfway to a coherent strategy, be careful you may get a call from some idiots in washington offering you a consulting contract.
petit_bateau
Active Member
Further evidence of Russian policy of criminal behaviour via Wagner group, this in Mali, 300+ dead
www.theguardian.com
Russian mercenaries and Mali army accused of killing 300 civilians
Human Rights Watch says deaths during anti-jihadist operation in Moura ‘the worst atrocity in Mali in a decade’
www.theguardian.com
glhs272
Unnamed plug faced villian
Thank you for the response, there is logic in a lot of these points, but some of these points need to be reconsidered given the reality of events on the ground in Ukraine.
The MIG-29s:
We don't really know what Russia is communicating to NATO on transfer of arms, but giving Ukraine some more obsolete MIGs as justification for Nuclear apocalypse seems a bit of a stretch for the Russians. Call their bluff. They have been using the Nuclear card for anything and everything. It's time to throw it back at them: NATO nuclear deterrence. The fact is, the MIG-29 is a capable platform but it's technology is woefully obsolete. The problems is it's missiles utilize a radar guidance system that doesn't have the range to match Russian fighters and more significantly the MIG-29s have to keep the plane pointed (thus it's radar) at the target until it strikes the target. It makes the MIG impossibly vulnerable. They are forced to use sneak attacks (Fly extremely low) to surprise the Russians in order to have a chance at making a shot. They need "Fire and forget" long range missiles in order to compete directly with the Russian fighters. The possibility exists that the MIG could have it's radar suite and missiles upgrade to this capability, but it would take years even in the best of circumstances. The Ukrainians already have MIG-29s and due to their limited capabilities I agree with the Pentagon that the risk/reward for the MIG is not very good. So if we have to take the risks, it might as well be a better jet. The MIGs would still be very useful once Ukrainian air dominance is achieved. They would make for good air to ground missions and hunting for cruise missiles. But air dominance is needed for them to be effective. BTW, I am basing a lot of this off of the Ukrainian pilots words themselves. If you haven't listened to "Juice" and what he as to say about the situation, you should.
F-15s:
The F-15 is a kick ass air superiority fighter. This is what the Ukrainian pilots are asking for. With it's performance and available munitions, this would put Ukrainian pilots on an even playing field with the Russians. The US has lots of them. The C/D models are in the process of being slowly retired in favor of the F-15EX and other fighters (F-35). So we have lots of spare jets to give away. We should do it. Of course there is the training and support. It will probably take longer to train the ground crews then it will the pilots. But it takes the whole crew to make it work. I realize that. But Ukraine has vastly more pilots than planes. That's the point Juice is trying to make. Send the pilots for training now. They can spare them, they only need a few pilots to keep the missions they are currently performing with the MIGs. Send the ground crews with them to train in parallel along side the pilots. This has to be done state-side as there is a war going on. We can provide that help, let's do it.
Time is of the essence. This war has already gone on for more than a month. Had they started the process from day 1, they might be ready by now. Regardless, start now. Don't sell the Ukrainian pilots short, they can learn these fighters faster than you are giving them credit for. Certainly better than risking their lives with the equipment they are flying now.
F-16s:
Also a very capable fighter. Well suited to the defense role in Ukraine (short range). The F-16s could be used as front-line air superiority fighter if F-15s are not available. It can carry a nice suite of missiles. But the F-16 is best used in conjunction with the F-15s. The F-16s can be setup with electronic warfare pods to allow them to fulfill the role of Wild Weasels. For those who don't know what that is, the F-16 Wild Weasels go after SAM and Radar installations. Provide cover from these ground based missiles while the F-15s provide fighter cover. They work best as a team. Let's give them the hardware. The F-16 is a relatively easy, intuitive fighter to fly. It may take longer to train the ground crews than the pilots, but got to get started.
Give Ukraine both planes, as they work best as a team. Train them in the US or some other safe territory. Do so expeditiously, and these new fighter squadrons could be ready to fly in as soon as a month. Once Ukraine can achieve air dominance, they stand a real chance of pushing the Russians out of there country.
F-22:
Clearly, the F-22 is a bigger ask. The biggest problem is they are chocked full of state of the art technology and is classified. Our enemies would love to have there hands on one. To have one of these shot down over Russian held territory would be a significant blow to the west. However, this should still be seriously considered. The F-22 could achieve total air supremacy over Ukraine on it's own, with probably a dozen or more fighters. These crews would take the longest to train. And is way more expensive to maintain than other fighters. The Ukrainian probably cannot afford to maintain even a small fleet, but if the US subsidizes the effort, they probably could. And we should subsidize them. We are outsourcing the fighting and security of Europe against the Russians, the least we could do is give them some good planes while they are spilling blood in the name of the west. But the F-22 can do almost everything from AWACs, Air to Ground, Air To Air superiority, Electronic warfare Air to SAM, and etc. If used with other jets, they can provide top cover and targeting while the other fighters do all of the actual fighting. It can be a true force multiplier, and thus should at least be considered. Perhaps trained for and held back if its determined to be needed. As far as limited supply, yes there are not that many of them. Ukraine would only need 12-20 fighters to do the job. The US only has 187 operational, but they are already looking to retire dozens of them. I can provide the links if necessary, but the point is the Airforce is already planning to thin the fleet. This would be a great way to do it. I know Israel would howl about Ukraine getting them when they were told no, but hey Ukraine is in a war for it's survival right now, Israel is not.
Alternatives:
There are other non-NATO but capable fighter jets out there. The SAAB Gripen comes to mind. Not battle tested, but has a lot of the technology needed to take on Russian fighters. I don't know that there is any inventory to speak of, so that's a big issue with it. They need fighters now. There may well be other fighters out there that can compete with Russian fighters. The biggest deal is to be able to launch decent fire and forget missiles with respectable range. The planes need to exist and not already allocated to critical needs. I don't know of any country in this situation of a bunch of modern fighter jets sitting around other than the US. But it needs to be explored and perhaps there is a trade available...
Abrams Tanks:
Yes this is a pig of tank. Newer versions this tank use APU (Auxiliary Power Units) so do not in fact need to consume huge amounts of fuel just idling. That was an Iraqi war issue and is no longer relevant. In the end I am not sure how important tanks really are to the Ukrainians. They are constantly being re-supplied with T-72s by the Russians themselves. But, the Abrams when used effectively can be a powerful defensive force. They can take out other tanks miles away before the enemy tank can even get in range. Much like artillery. But even Abrams are vulnerable to bombing by jets and drones. So if Ukraine doesn't achieve Air Dominance, they will be vulnerable. Ukraine may be better off with Bradley fighting vehicles or other light to medium armor. The Ukrainians seemed to be very effective at utilizing the BTR-4, even in the most dire of circumstances (Mariupol). So perhaps others would be better. Training needs to be done, but on the order of a month or two, seems doable in wartime urgency.
The broader point:
This all needs to start now. No matter what happens, this war is not going to be over by May 9th. This war started in 2014 and has been going on for years. It is only now reaching a hot stage, but it will continue until Ukraine is dominated or can fully defend itself militarily. The Russian military still has a lot of firepower left and is reconsolidating that power to renew an offensive from the east. Don't assume they are a totally spent force. No matter what Russia peace Russia promises, it's not worth the paper it's printed on. The only way to guaranty Ukraine's territory and sovereignty is with a military to back that up. Ukraine does not have that military force currently, or Russia wouldn't have invaded. They have made a heroic stand and done more than most thought possible. But this war is not over. It will continue to grind on until it can be decisively concluded. There may be cease fires and compromises but only to suite further Russian aggression. Ukraine can be a huge European power, as a check on Russia. This will greatly benefit the rest of Europe and the US. We must help them achieve it. The sooner overwhelming firepower can be put under Ukrainian control, the sooner this war will end and the fewer lives will be lost.
Terminator857
Active Member
Let's not judge what the Ukrainian defense forces want. Let's just give it to them. Let them deal with the maintenance and other issues. They are smart people who learn quickly and are resourceful. We have 4K F16's in storage. Send them a steady stream.
Last edited:
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
"Former NATO Supreme Allied Supreme Commander Gen. Wesley Clark explains what Russia's objectives are in Eastern Ukraine and how Ukrainian forces can stop them."
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
The problem with the SAAB Gripen is that the current Swedish Govt. is probably way too spineless to agree to giving Gripens. This could probably only happen if Sweden gets absolutely 100% security guarantees from NATO or the US. Sweden would probably also need to somehow provide planes from its existing air force. I could be wrong, but I don't think there are any Gripens in storage somewhere.
Gripen might be the 4th gen fighter that is the easiest to service and maintain and also has the shortest turn-around time at the improvised bases the Ukrainians are probably using.
But this could also mean that the US or some other country would have to supplement the Swedish Air Force until SAAB can replace the Gripens if they are somehow provided to Ukraine...
Last edited:
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
Doggydogworld
Active Member
Great points overall.
I completely agree with the more/better/faster theme when it comes to arming Ukraine. We also need to flood them with drones -- they've done some great work developing their own drone systems and tactics on the fly. They are probably more capable when it comes to using drones than anyone in the world right now, including the US.
We should also consider "escalatory" moves like putting ships in the Black Sea and off the coast of Kaliningrad. General Paul Eaton (ret) talks about this on CNN at times. As Mitt Romney said when this started, we need to worry less about what Putin might do and make him worry about what we might do. We've been doing the opposite, even canceling exercises because it might upset him. Putin sees that as weakness, tantamount to permission to do as he pleases.
The other big problem is the time it takes to train the ground crews and build the maintenance supply chains. Pilot training is fast in comparison.
Tanks will be much more important in the east. As Wesley Clark points out, it's a lot of open terrain. You can't hide behind buildings with shoulder-launched TOW/NLAW/etc. missiles as the Ukranians did so effectively in defense of Kyiv.
I completely agree with the more/better/faster theme when it comes to arming Ukraine. We also need to flood them with drones -- they've done some great work developing their own drone systems and tactics on the fly. They are probably more capable when it comes to using drones than anyone in the world right now, including the US.
We should also consider "escalatory" moves like putting ships in the Black Sea and off the coast of Kaliningrad. General Paul Eaton (ret) talks about this on CNN at times. As Mitt Romney said when this started, we need to worry less about what Putin might do and make him worry about what we might do. We've been doing the opposite, even canceling exercises because it might upset him. Putin sees that as weakness, tantamount to permission to do as he pleases.
Agree with the last comment. Putin only takes a real threat seriously. Everything else is seen by him as weakness he can exploit. He needs to be properly scared or this awful situation will drag on and on.
Orban would never agree, he’s too far up Putins rear end, he should be renamed Bootsy, because that’s all you can see of him hanging out the back off Putin
That’s the Russian male mentality pretty much, it’s a bit like facing off an aggresive dog, run and it’ll chase, stand your ground and look bigger / fiercer you stand a chance it’ll back down (not saying this works with all aggresive dogs btw
)Pretty sure the UK has a lot of equipment in storage as they’ve shrunk the armed forces so much in recent years. Certainly a few Typhoons that could be brought out of mothballs from RAF storage, quite probably Challengers and Warrior AFV too. Someone with a better idea where to look could probably find the exact figures.
Ukraine is now getting SwitchBlade 600 drones in addition to 300s.
SwitchBlade 600s out range a lot of the Russian artillery, providing a good way of destroying that artillery.
300s can probably be used to provide covering fire when attacking troops.
In addition, Ukraine can use their Drones, Missiles, Tanks and Artillery.
Once a few pieces of equipment are on fire that provides some smoke, which may make it slightly harder for Russian aircraft to identify targets
What is also needed is the ability to shoot down Russian aircraft in the combat zones.
As I understand it, they are only going to send something like 10 SwitchBlade 600s. Not a lot, at this point.
10 systems. Each system has 10 munitions, so 100 in total.
I read that it is 10 packs of 10, so 100 in total.
This is odiously a trail, SwitchBlades 600s are new and untested in a combat situation, but they have performed very well in trails.
A few hits will also send the Russians a message.
I imagine the US can ramp production and supply higher volumes if needed.
