Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 5867
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 3:23 pm

lightsaber wrote:
otherwise the Baltics, Romania, Hungary, and Poland will fall back into this new USSR.


Win or lose, Russia will be in no position to invade anyone (except maybe Georgia) in the next 10 years.

With the Russian economy imploding, even the pro-russian citizens of those country would not want to be part of that cooperative again.

For comparison, it took the US 10 years after leaving Vietnam before it went after Grenada and Panama.


bt
 
johns624
Posts: 5527
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 3:35 pm

sabenapilot wrote:

BTW- despite all the setbacks on the battlefield it has been a couple of weeks he hasn't reminded the world he has nukes.... :scratchchin:
Is he starting to understand that the more he threatens to use them, the less impact it still makes, unless he's actually doing it and then he's done with.
Over the course of the past 3 weeks, the Russian army has shown it true offensive strengths: it's a paper tiger with totally useless nuclear weapons other than in self-defence and annihilation.
Putin has demonstrated the assessment of Obama from 2008 which infuriated him was dead right: Russia is nothing more but a regional power at best, similar to India or Pakistan for instance.
He and his country's military are hugely overrated.
You have to wonder what China is thinking? They can't say anything right now but their partner isn't quite who they thought they were.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 24175
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 3:44 pm

Poland proposes a total EU trade ban with Russia:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/uk ... NewsSearch

“Poland is proposing to add a trade blockade to this package of sanctions as soon as possible, (including) both of its seaports… but also a ban on land trade. Fully cutting off Russia’s trade would further force Russia to consider whether it would be better to stop this cruel war,” Mr Morawiecki said.

This might actually be enough sanctions to stop Russia. maybe...

Some details are missing. e.g., would gas an energy trade continue?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 24175
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 3:57 pm

bikerthai wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
otherwise the Baltics, Romania, Hungary, and Poland will fall back into this new USSR.


Win or lose, Russia will be in no position to invade anyone (except maybe Georgia) in the next 10 years.

With the Russian economy imploding, even the pro-russian citizens of those country would not want to be part of that cooperative again.

For comparison, it took the US 10 years after leaving Vietnam before it went after Grenada and Panama.


bt

That depends on Ukraine. If Russia wins Ukraine and sanctions go away, they'll be able to build the military quickly. Russia will at least threaten and, in my opinion, right now it seems to be every country for themselves.

I posted up thread the will for sanctions will only last as long as Ukraine holds on; while that is my opinion, I think it is the sad reality. So if Ukraine holds on, I believe those countries are safe as far too much of the "Russian military might" is engaged in Ukraine. However, if Ukraine is suppressed, Russia gains enough resources to speed up armament. They will be a triumphant power ready to restore the USSR's rightful boarders.

The US had the ability after Vietnam to "go after" countries, there wasn't any political will. The issue with a despot, is that it only takes one person's whim to make it happen. So I respectfully disagree on the analogy.

This is why sanctions must become tougher to force a pull out of troops. Yes, there will be an impact on the nations imposing sanctions.

Because of the nuke threat, we cannot send our own divisions into Ukraine. I can only hope the rate we send weapons increases.

Lightsaber
 
QF7
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:42 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thr

Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:02 pm

bikerthai wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
For comparison, it took the US 10 years after leaving Vietnam before it went after Grenada and Panama.

Sorry, but that argument doesn’t hold water. First, the situations on the ground that led to those invasions occurred when they occurred; it’s not like the US was launching invasions just for the sake of invading. Secondly, you’re implying that the US was incapable of invading even tiny nations for 10 years after Vietnam, which is not true. The US was still fighting the Cold War and had significant military presence in Europe, South Korea, and elsewhere and could easily have taken Grenada and Panama 10 days or 10 weeks after Vietnam.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 5867
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:09 pm

lightsaber wrote:
That depends on Ukraine. If Russia wins Ukraine and sanctions go away, they'll be able to build the military quickly. Russia will at least threaten and, in my opinion, right now it seems to be every country for themselves.


Not every country for themselves as the countries you mentioned are already in NATO and would less likely leave.

It's also not a matter of rebuilding the economy, but also the reorganization of their forces which have proven to be not adequate for the 21st century.

With a corrupt system, how likely is this going to happened?

Then finally how effectively is rebuilding going to happen when the Russian brain drain has already begun and will accelerate if Putin wins and consolidate power?

Kind of ironic, the result of the US losing the Vietnam war brought forth an influx of SE Asian refugees who have contributed to the growth in the 80s and 90s. The result of this Ukrainane war will further integrate Ukrainian people and culture into the rest of Europe and when the fighting stops will integrate the rest of Europe into Ukraine via the re-building process.

bt
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 5867
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:24 pm

QF7 wrote:
Sorry, but that argument doesn’t hold water. First, the situations on the ground that led to those invasions occurred when they occurred;


True, my argument is somewhat weak. But the excuse for going into those counties were also weak and probably only occured because the probability of success is high and the military was revamped enough to carry out the mission.

Say if the US wanted to do invade the other Central America hot spot during the late 70's it would have gotten in to another quagmire.

And it didn't even try to stop the killing fields in Cambodia.

bt
Last edited by bikerthai on Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 15602
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:24 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Why can they not be brought online if only shut down 2 months ago? That needs to be looked into.


Either they have been "sabotaged" as in someone has started cutting pipes or something, to be sure that the shutdown wasn't reversible, or there is no desire in the German government (that includes antinuclear people with all kinds of esoteric beliefs) to restart them.

A few days after shutting down you can remove the fuel, so that has probably started, and there is no new fuel ready for use, putting back the old fuel might be complicated, I don't know.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 24175
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:29 pm

bikerthai wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
That depends on Ukraine. If Russia wins Ukraine and sanctions go away, they'll be able to build the military quickly. Russia will at least threaten and, in my opinion, right now it seems to be every country for themselves.


Not every country for themselves as the countries you mentioned are already in NATO and would less likely leave.

It's also not a matter of rebuilding the economy, but also the reorganization of their forces which have proven to be not adequate for the 21st century.

With a corrupt system, how likely is this going to happened?

Then finally how effectively is rebuilding going to happen when the Russian brain drain has already begun and will accelerate if Putin wins and consolidate power?

Kind of ironic, the result of the US losing the Vietnam war brought forth an influx of SE Asian refugees who have contributed to the growth in the 80s and 90s. The result of this Ukrainane war will further integrate Ukrainian people and culture into the rest of Europe and when the fighting stops will integrate the rest of Europe into Ukraine via the re-building process.

bt

Would Nato risk nuclear war? After Georgia and the Crimea? I must question.
I also question the USA's appetite. Only the USA has an expeditionary force.

I never assume the enemy remains incompetent. That would be wonderful.

We can agree the refugees with infuse the EU will new purpose.

However, while Russia has proven unable to fight an organized and determined resistance, I'm not sure what level of casualties the USA would accept. Let's be blunt, the USA would have a do a huge amount of the fighting as we have the expeditionary forces. After Afghanistan, I'm not seeing the military will nor political support to fight another foreign war. Unfortunately, I see this as great timing by Russia. This isn't what I want, it is the sad reality as I see it.

In other news:
I'm reading the actual paper version of this story:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukrainian- ... 1647605489

It looks like Mykolaiv has been relieved and while I see all the artillery attacks happening isn't as much on the front lines. There aren't many areas the Russians are pushed back. As we enter the 4th week, troops must be getting fatigued. The morale/unit effectiveness curves in the book "Am Krieg" have always fascinated me. I wonder how long Russian units will maintain combat effectiveness?

Lightsaber
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 15602
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:29 pm

bikerthai wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
That depends on Ukraine. If Russia wins Ukraine and sanctions go away, they'll be able to build the military quickly. Russia will at least threaten and, in my opinion, right now it seems to be every country for themselves.


Not every country for themselves as the countries you mentioned are already in NATO and would less likely leave.

It's also not a matter of rebuilding the economy, but also the reorganization of their forces which have proven to be not adequate for the 21st century.
bt


Russia had a very weak economy even without any sanctions. Aside from selling off its natural resources there is almost nothing going on. That's not the direct fault of Russians, who are well educated, and have a history with scientists, engineers, doctors, etc., but the utter corruption of Putin's regime led to this, and it isn't going to be "rebuilt" by him or anybody like him. Especially not without outside help and goodwill.
 
johns624
Posts: 5527
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:44 pm

Here's a thought out of left field---with all the talk about Moldova maybe being next, and with them having strong historical ties to Romania, would there be any chance of them asking Romania to annex them? It would get them into the EU and NATO and really help their economic development.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 5867
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:47 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Would Nato risk nuclear war? After Georgia and the Crimea? I must question.


Probably not for Georgia. But for the Baltics, Hungary, Poland and Romania? Would the US risk nuclear war if Canada was invaded by Russia?

As for Poland, do we think the Polish arm forces are better equiped than the Ukrainians? In 4 years, they will receive F-35, so the Russian Airforce will jot be able to control the skies iver Poland.

bt
 
johns624
Posts: 5527
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 5:02 pm

bikerthai wrote:

Probably not for Georgia. But for the Baltics, Hungary, Poland and Romania? Would the US risk nuclear war if Canada was invaded by Russia?

As for Poland, do we think the Polish arm forces are better equiped than the Ukrainians? In 4 years, they will receive F-35, so the Russian Airforce will jot be able to control the skies iver Poland.

bt
+1 There's a reason that NATO has forces in those countries. First, to dissuade invasions, and second, to act as a tripwire.
 
Alfons
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 1:17 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 5:39 pm

bikerthai wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Would Nato risk nuclear war? After Georgia and the Crimea? I must question.


Probably not for Georgia. But for the Baltics, Hungary, Poland and Romania? Would the US risk nuclear war if Canada was invaded by Russia?

As for Poland, do we think the Polish arm forces are better equiped than the Ukrainians? In 4 years, they will receive F-35, so the Russian Airforce will jot be able to control the skies iver Poland.

bt


As you say, no military will hinder Russia from doing it again with another country. Because it has the nuclear arsenal, and a head of state no one knows today if he's crazy or still loves to live.

Only way to block Putin from doing it again with the next country, and to block other states to copy-cat, is to empty fridges, which will move the ppl to fight against their own government.
 
pune
Posts: 1472
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 5:48 pm

johns624 wrote:
sabenapilot wrote:

BTW- despite all the setbacks on the battlefield it has been a couple of weeks he hasn't reminded the world he has nukes.... :scratchchin:
Is he starting to understand that the more he threatens to use them, the less impact it still makes, unless he's actually doing it and then he's done with.
Over the course of the past 3 weeks, the Russian army has shown it true offensive strengths: it's a paper tiger with totally useless nuclear weapons other than in self-defence and annihilation.
Putin has demonstrated the assessment of Obama from 2008 which infuriated him was dead right: Russia is nothing more but a regional power at best, similar to India or Pakistan for instance.
He and his country's military are hugely overrated.
You have to wonder what China is thinking? They can't say anything right now but their partner isn't quite who they thought they were.


I think they did make their calculations even with the possibility that Russia might lose. The Chinese would still win as they would have used this opportunity to have more influence over Russia as well. China is a serious player and thinks long-term.
 
GDB
Posts: 15379
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 6:12 pm

Oh look, the GOP's favourite funders, pickers of candidates, so please, across the pond, cut the holier than thou about business with Russia.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... s-pressure
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 24175
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 7:19 pm

Alfons wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Would Nato risk nuclear war? After Georgia and the Crimea? I must question.


Probably not for Georgia. But for the Baltics, Hungary, Poland and Romania? Would the US risk nuclear war if Canada was invaded by Russia?

As for Poland, do we think the Polish arm forces are better equiped than the Ukrainians? In 4 years, they will receive F-35, so the Russian Airforce will jot be able to control the skies iver Poland.

bt


As you say, no military will hinder Russia from doing it again with another country. Because it has the nuclear arsenal, and a head of state no one knows today if he's crazy or still loves to live.

Only way to block Putin from doing it again with the next country, and to block other states to copy-cat, is to empty fridges, which will move the ppl to fight against their own government.

This is unfortunately the way to go. However, sanctions of some nature will continue to prevent Russia's military from rebuilding.


The rational thing for Russia to do is negotiate for a peace acceptable to Ukraine and Nato. This article goes into more detail.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pu ... NewsSearch

Either Russia proof that can be rational, or it has to be treated like a rogue Nation.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 5867
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 7:29 pm

Alfons wrote:
Only way to block Putin from doing it again with the next country, and to block other states to copy-cat, is to empty fridges, which will move the ppl to fight against their own government.


Or enter a bilateral defense agreement with the US. After seeing the state of the Russian army, Congress might be crazy enough to go along.

bt
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 24175
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 7:36 pm

bikerthai wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Would Nato risk nuclear war? After Georgia and the Crimea? I must question.


Probably not for Georgia. But for the Baltics, Hungary, Poland and Romania? Would the US risk nuclear war if Canada was invaded by Russia?

As for Poland, do we think the Polish arm forces are better equiped than the Ukrainians? In 4 years, they will receive F-35, so the Russian Airforce will jot be able to control the skies iver Poland.

bt

In February, Poland lost the wargames they conducted to simulated Russian forces:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... ans-178578

So yes, I believe there is a real risk. If Poland receives F-35s in 4 years, that means in 5 years they will have the first active squadron. I realize we were in the process of selling them a large number of tanks too.

Those failed war games are why Poland is doubling its military. Poland isn't ready today. As things change I will change my opinion; so when Poland has a sufficient military to dissuade invasion they will be safe.

I think we disagree on how fast Russia will reform the military.

To win a war requires expeditionary forces. In my opinion Libya showed only the USA can provide that in Nato. Russia has botched this once. I expect them to learn.

While Poland has a good military, there is a reason it is doubling the military size (see link). NATO has been underfunded for decades. Meh...
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4698
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 7:49 pm

I tend to disagree. Poland does not stand alone. Russia has depleted a lot of resources in Ukraine, so the risk for Poland currently is lower. Poland should use the next five years to massively invest into heavy battlegroups, and so should (and hopefully will) Germany, however.

Getting reinforcements into Poland is relatively easy. The baltics are more threatened.
 
Dogman
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:47 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 8:04 pm

I disagree with lightsaber. The sanctions will not be lifted if Russia wins in Ukraine. It's much bigger than Ukraine now. Also, in case of Russian invasion into Poland or Baltic states, if US provides aerial support there would be no need for them to provide expeditionary force. There is enough manpower in Europe, especially if Germany stops acting like a recovering alcoholic, who cannot be trusted being withing 10 meters of a bottle, and rebuilds its military.
 
Dogman
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:47 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 8:08 pm

bikerthai wrote:
And it didn't even try to stop the killing fields in Cambodia.

bt


No, but Vietnam did.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 24175
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 8:49 pm

Dogman wrote:
I disagree with lightsaber. The sanctions will not be lifted if Russia wins in Ukraine. It's much bigger than Ukraine now. Also, in case of Russian invasion into Poland or Baltic states, if US provides aerial support there would be no need for them to provide expeditionary force. There is enough manpower in Europe, especially if Germany stops acting like a recovering alcoholic, who cannot be trusted being withing 10 meters of a bottle, and rebuilds its military.

I hope I am wrong. However sanctions have a high cost to implement, that I see many not supporting unless Ukraine is still hanging on.
 
Dogman
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:47 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 9:03 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Either Russia proof that can be rational, or it has to be treated like a rogue Nation.


It reminds me the old joke. "OK, last Friday I saw my wife texting her naked picture to her boss. On the weekend she said that she will be going out of town to see a girlfriend, but I saw her car parked near his house. And today I saw them kissing. So, is she cheating on me? I hate this uncertainty" .
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 5867
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 9:08 pm

Dogman wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
And it didn't even try to stop the killing fields in Cambodia.

bt


No, but Vietnam did.


And they suffered for the intervention.

lightsaber wrote:
I think we disagree on how fast Russia will reform the military.


Not only will they have to replace the equipment, they will have to replace their officer corp. Many who are doing the fighting will get valuable experience, but do we really believe they will be promoted or want to be promoted with Putin in charge?

Not being experts here, but do we all see that heavy tank army is obsolete in the new battlefield? The new forces need to be flexible, independent and tech heavy. This you need to build from the ground up, starting at the school level. That is a big undertaking.

bt
 
Dogman
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:47 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 9:12 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Dogman wrote:
I disagree with lightsaber. The sanctions will not be lifted if Russia wins in Ukraine. It's much bigger than Ukraine now. Also, in case of Russian invasion into Poland or Baltic states, if US provides aerial support there would be no need for them to provide expeditionary force. There is enough manpower in Europe, especially if Germany stops acting like a recovering alcoholic, who cannot be trusted being withing 10 meters of a bottle, and rebuilds its military.

I hope I am wrong. However sanctions have a high cost to implement, that I see many not supporting unless Ukraine is still hanging on.


The sanctions do have high costs to implement and to maintain. But not as high as a war in the middle of Europe with all that follows it. That's why the course has been taken on decoupling of European economy from Russian economy, or at least to reduce their co-dependence. I've heard it from a Russian political analyst, who I have to say is not a fan of Putin's regime.
 
GDB
Posts: 15379
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 10:31 pm

Someone got karma'd;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yere8FnJgIA

The fifth senior officer apparently, he was in the Donbass region, in 2014, was responsible for shelling Ukrainian soldiers who had surrendered and agreed, so they thought, an evacuation corridor.
I bet that story is very well known in Ukraine, small wonder they are not about to roll over.
A tactic now extended to civilians.

I keep seeing this 'Europeans don't have any expeditionary capability', really?
40 years ago nearly, after 15 years of downgrading that ability to focus on NATO, a rather substantial expeditionary force fought 8000 miles away, the air and sealift was provided by the UK entirely, including many merchant ships chartered.

In 1990/91 an eventual division sized mechanized force was deployed to the Gulf, the airlift when the RAF was limited to C-130's, VC-10's and a few Tristars, plus as before a mixture of naval and chartered sealift.
Ditto the same region in 2003, now with some C-17's and C-130J's new in service.

The initial brigade sized force sent to Afghanistan, then expanded, was deployed and maintained by a RAF airlift, now with more C-17's, C-130J's too, Tristars and near the end, Voyagers.

France too has a substantial and much used expeditionary capability, a bit weak on airlift but increasing numbers of A400M's will help that, though they maybe should also have grabbed a few C-17's while they could, they have brought some C-130J's after all. In terms of AFV's suitable for expeditionary work and also packing a punch, they've been doing that for many years.

Both each have the most substantial amphibious capability of a Western nation outside of the US.

Is there room for improvement? Of course, as I type this however, both RN carriers are at sea, one in the command ship/amphibious support/ASW helicopter role leading the substantial NATO exercise off and in Norway, the other being the on call strike carrier.

There are of course historic reasons why those two nations have an expeditionary capability, residual in the UK's case though enhanced some after 1982. The main focus of the first proper post Cold War review in the UK, in 1998, which started the carriers, enhanced airlift programs to name two.
 
johns624
Posts: 5527
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Mar 19, 2022 11:57 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Not being experts here, but do we all see that heavy tank army is obsolete in the new battlefield? The new forces need to be flexible, independent and tech heavy. This you need to build from the ground up, starting at the school level. That is a big undertaking.

bt
No, heavy forces are not obsolete. Centralized command, lack of initiative, no infantry support for armor and no air-ground coordination are what's obsolete, and have been for 80+ years. A Western armoured division would look entirely different from what the Russians are doing.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 24175
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:41 am

GDB wrote:

I keep seeing this 'Europeans don't have any expeditionary capability', really?
40 years ago nearly, after 15 years of downgrading that ability to focus on NATO, a rather substantial expeditionary force fought 8000 miles away, the air and sealift was provided by the UK entirely, including many merchant ships chartered.

In 1990/91 an eventual division sized mechanized force was deployed to the Gulf, the airlift when the RAF was limited to C-130's, VC-10's and a few Tristars, plus as before a mixture of naval and chartered sealift.
Ditto the same region in 2003, now with some C-17's and C-130J's new in service.

The initial brigade sized force sent to Afghanistan, then expanded, was deployed and maintained by a RAF airlift, now with more C-17's, C-130J's too, Tristars and near the end, Voyagers.

France too has a substantial and much used expeditionary capability, a bit weak on airlift but increasing numbers of A400M's will help that, though they maybe should also have grabbed a few C-17's while they could, they have brought some C-130J's after all. In terms of AFV's suitable for expeditionary work and also packing a punch, they've been doing that for many years.

Both each have the most substantial amphibious capability of a Western nation outside of the US.

Is there room for improvement? Of course, as I type this however, both RN carriers are at sea, one in the command ship/amphibious support/ASW helicopter role leading the substantial NATO exercise off and in Norway, the other being the on call strike carrier.

There are of course historic reasons why those two nations have an expeditionary capability, residual in the UK's case though enhanced some after 1982. The main focus of the first proper post Cold War review in the UK, in 1998, which started the carriers, enhanced airlift programs to name two.

The UK did wonderful at the Falklands. To my understanding, they have seriously downsized their capability. Afghanistan was known for sending light brigades that needed significant US support.

An expidiciary force must be able to move 20,000+ front line soldiers with on the order of 30,000 support staff. That is what one US Marine MEF is (at a minimum, the larger one is 90,000 soldiers).
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... 20have%20a

How many tens of thousands of troops could Europe move forward? My comments are based on scale. If the EU is ready to support 100,000+ troops, I'm all ready to hear about that capability. That is what I mean on no expeditionary force. Recall the British Expeditionary Force in France in WW2 was 390,000 soldiers. While warfare is smaller numbers today, I'm not seeing the capability to support a thousand+ attack aricraft with say one tanker per 8 aircraft with those 100,000+ ground troops. That is what a modern expeditionary force must be.

The initial invasion of Iraq was 160,000 troops. I appreciate Europe contributed. But according to the link 130,000 were US soldiers (but then the math doesn't add up as it notes 45,000 UK...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Unfortunately, only those levels of numbers matter with the HUGE logistics chain. The UK has the most impressive capability for an expeditionary force in Europe, but to my knowledge the only large expeditionary capability.

I keep talking because I am of the opinion, after Afghanistan, the US doesn't have the political support to risk a nuclear war.

I suspect that is why so many of the small republics bordering Russia have suddenly found they need civilian marksmanship programs to create a reason not to invade.
For those who follow "Gun Jesus," (Forgotten Weapons) this is one of his best videos and is about describing the change of civilian gun ownership going on in the more threatened parts of Europe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWdn6_ayqD8

Obviously the capability isn't zero. Is it enough to deter Russia? At one location. But what if they do a feint. e.g., pretend to be aiming for Estonia and instead hit Romania...

Lightsaber
 
johns624
Posts: 5527
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:52 am

The UK's projection capability has increased since they got both carriers up and running. That being sense, I don't think there is a European country that can project any force larger than an armoured brigade (5000 troops) within 30 days. Even that would be a stretch for most. Maybe a medium (wheeled) unit for some. Light infantry can be deployed much faster, but how much good it would do if not quickly relieved is a question.
PS-Ian is great!
 
astuteman
Posts: 7590
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:47 am

lightsaber wrote:
GDB wrote:

I keep seeing this 'Europeans don't have any expeditionary capability', really?
40 years ago nearly, after 15 years of downgrading that ability to focus on NATO, a rather substantial expeditionary force fought 8000 miles away, the air and sealift was provided by the UK entirely, including many merchant ships chartered.

In 1990/91 an eventual division sized mechanized force was deployed to the Gulf, the airlift when the RAF was limited to C-130's, VC-10's and a few Tristars, plus as before a mixture of naval and chartered sealift.
Ditto the same region in 2003, now with some C-17's and C-130J's new in service.

The initial brigade sized force sent to Afghanistan, then expanded, was deployed and maintained by a RAF airlift, now with more C-17's, C-130J's too, Tristars and near the end, Voyagers.

France too has a substantial and much used expeditionary capability, a bit weak on airlift but increasing numbers of A400M's will help that, though they maybe should also have grabbed a few C-17's while they could, they have brought some C-130J's after all. In terms of AFV's suitable for expeditionary work and also packing a punch, they've been doing that for many years.

Both each have the most substantial amphibious capability of a Western nation outside of the US.

Is there room for improvement? Of course, as I type this however, both RN carriers are at sea, one in the command ship/amphibious support/ASW helicopter role leading the substantial NATO exercise off and in Norway, the other being the on call strike carrier.

There are of course historic reasons why those two nations have an expeditionary capability, residual in the UK's case though enhanced some after 1982. The main focus of the first proper post Cold War review in the UK, in 1998, which started the carriers, enhanced airlift programs to name two.

The UK did wonderful at the Falklands. To my understanding, they have seriously downsized their capability. Afghanistan was known for sending light brigades that needed significant US support.

An expidiciary force must be able to move 20,000+ front line soldiers with on the order of 30,000 support staff. That is what one US Marine MEF is (at a minimum, the larger one is 90,000 soldiers).
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... 20have%20a

How many tens of thousands of troops could Europe move forward? My comments are based on scale. If the EU is ready to support 100,000+ troops, I'm all ready to hear about that capability. That is what I mean on no expeditionary force. Recall the British Expeditionary Force in France in WW2 was 390,000 soldiers. While warfare is smaller numbers today, I'm not seeing the capability to support a thousand+ attack aricraft with say one tanker per 8 aircraft with those 100,000+ ground troops. That is what a modern expeditionary force must be.

The initial invasion of Iraq was 160,000 troops. I appreciate Europe contributed. But according to the link 130,000 were US soldiers (but then the math doesn't add up as it notes 45,000 UK...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Unfortunately, only those levels of numbers matter with the HUGE logistics chain. The UK has the most impressive capability for an expeditionary force in Europe, but to my knowledge the only large expeditionary capability.

I keep talking because I am of the opinion, after Afghanistan, the US doesn't have the political support to risk a nuclear war.

I suspect that is why so many of the small republics bordering Russia have suddenly found they need civilian marksmanship programs to create a reason not to invade.
For those who follow "Gun Jesus," (Forgotten Weapons) this is one of his best videos and is about describing the change of civilian gun ownership going on in the more threatened parts of Europe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWdn6_ayqD8

Obviously the capability isn't zero. Is it enough to deter Russia? At one location. But what if they do a feint. e.g., pretend to be aiming for Estonia and instead hit Romania...

Lightsaber


This quite possibly the most pointless piece of US "willy-waving" that I've ever seen.
There's no capability in Europe because capability only counts if it's as big as the US?
Get over yourself...
I expect better, to be honest..

I suspect the collective ability of European NATO countries to operate substantial numbers of troops and aircraft "out of country" (as in the 100,000 plus you describe) is pretty considerable. We're not talking about shipping them all to the Falklands. This is to the European country next-door-but-one.

Why isn't the European capability even bigger? Perhaps a look at post WW2 history might be insightful

Rgds
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 24175
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Mar 20, 2022 7:47 am

astuteman wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
GDB wrote:

I keep seeing this 'Europeans don't have any expeditionary capability', really?
40 years ago nearly, after 15 years of downgrading that ability to focus on NATO, a rather substantial expeditionary force fought 8000 miles away, the air and sealift was provided by the UK entirely, including many merchant ships chartered.

In 1990/91 an eventual division sized mechanized force was deployed to the Gulf, the airlift when the RAF was limited to C-130's, VC-10's and a few Tristars, plus as before a mixture of naval and chartered sealift.
Ditto the same region in 2003, now with some C-17's and C-130J's new in service.

The initial brigade sized force sent to Afghanistan, then expanded, was deployed and maintained by a RAF airlift, now with more C-17's, C-130J's too, Tristars and near the end, Voyagers.

France too has a substantial and much used expeditionary capability, a bit weak on airlift but increasing numbers of A400M's will help that, though they maybe should also have grabbed a few C-17's while they could, they have brought some C-130J's after all. In terms of AFV's suitable for expeditionary work and also packing a punch, they've been doing that for many years.

Both each have the most substantial amphibious capability of a Western nation outside of the US.

Is there room for improvement? Of course, as I type this however, both RN carriers are at sea, one in the command ship/amphibious support/ASW helicopter role leading the substantial NATO exercise off and in Norway, the other being the on call strike carrier.

There are of course historic reasons why those two nations have an expeditionary capability, residual in the UK's case though enhanced some after 1982. The main focus of the first proper post Cold War review in the UK, in 1998, which started the carriers, enhanced airlift programs to name two.

The UK did wonderful at the Falklands. To my understanding, they have seriously downsized their capability. Afghanistan was known for sending light brigades that needed significant US support.

An expidiciary force must be able to move 20,000+ front line soldiers with on the order of 30,000 support staff. That is what one US Marine MEF is (at a minimum, the larger one is 90,000 soldiers).
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... 20have%20a

How many tens of thousands of troops could Europe move forward? My comments are based on scale. If the EU is ready to support 100,000+ troops, I'm all ready to hear about that capability. That is what I mean on no expeditionary force. Recall the British Expeditionary Force in France in WW2 was 390,000 soldiers. While warfare is smaller numbers today, I'm not seeing the capability to support a thousand+ attack aricraft with say one tanker per 8 aircraft with those 100,000+ ground troops. That is what a modern expeditionary force must be.

The initial invasion of Iraq was 160,000 troops. I appreciate Europe contributed. But according to the link 130,000 were US soldiers (but then the math doesn't add up as it notes 45,000 UK...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Unfortunately, only those levels of numbers matter with the HUGE logistics chain. The UK has the most impressive capability for an expeditionary force in Europe, but to my knowledge the only large expeditionary capability.

I keep talking because I am of the opinion, after Afghanistan, the US doesn't have the political support to risk a nuclear war.

I suspect that is why so many of the small republics bordering Russia have suddenly found they need civilian marksmanship programs to create a reason not to invade.
For those who follow "Gun Jesus," (Forgotten Weapons) this is one of his best videos and is about describing the change of civilian gun ownership going on in the more threatened parts of Europe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWdn6_ayqD8

Obviously the capability isn't zero. Is it enough to deter Russia? At one location. But what if they do a feint. e.g., pretend to be aiming for Estonia and instead hit Romania...

Lightsaber


This quite possibly the most pointless piece of US "willy-waving" that I've ever seen.
There's no capability in Europe because capability only counts if it's as big as the US?
Get over yourself...
I expect better, to be honest..

I suspect the collective ability of European NATO countries to operate substantial numbers of troops and aircraft "out of country" (as in the 100,000 plus you describe) is pretty considerable. We're not talking about shipping them all to the Falklands. This is to the European country next-door-but-one.

Why isn't the European capability even bigger? Perhaps a look at post WW2 history might be insightful

Rgds

That is not the point I was making. It is being able to support an advance of sufficient troop strength to make a difference on the battlefield.

If they can do the numbers you suggest, I am mistaken.

Late edit: However, the quantities of the troops, other than Turkey, suggest otherwise:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/584 ... 0personnel.

I would be extremely happy to pull US troops out of Europe. I do not believe the USA can afford to keep so many troops in Europe long term.

Even later edit: It looks like the USA has over 100,000 troops in Europe with 40k placed under direct Nato command:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/100k-amer ... europe.amp

I personally wonder why we haven't sent over a MEF. To my knowledge, the I MEF is available and is one heck of a deterant to Russia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Marin ... nary_Force

I believe the II MEF and III MEF are currently assigned to other regions. It always amazes me to watch the Navy ships fill up to carry a MEF across the seas.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 21085
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Mar 20, 2022 8:50 am

lightsaber wrote:
The initial invasion of Iraq was 160,000 troops. I appreciate Europe contributed. But according to the link 130,000 were US soldiers (but then the math doesn't add up as it notes 45,000 UK...)


So, if the 45,000 figure is accurate, the UK contributed more troops on a per-capita basis than America. :spin:
 
marcelh
Posts: 2010
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Mar 20, 2022 9:31 am

lightsaber wrote:
I would be extremely happy to pull US troops out of Europe. I do not believe the USA can afford to keep so many troops in Europe long term.


Blame your previous governments after 1989. In links I have provided earlier in this thread, it was the US government who was reluctant of a more independent European (EU?) based defense structure, because “less NATO” meant less US influence. IMHO I wasn’t in US interest to have a “one block” strong Europe within NATO, but rather have smaller -more independent- allies. Look at EUKAS; one NATO member (France) is throwing for the bus for another (UK) for the interest of the US in the Pacific.
European NATO members have to cooperate much closer for various reasons:
- More efficient military developement, procurement, training and deployment (not everyone has to have a handful of fighter planes);
- Become less dependent from the USA and more an equal partner within NATO.
- For the EU: have a meaningful military force which suits the economic power they are.

But this isn’t changed in a year; will cost at least 10-15 years. So for the forseeable future Europe is dependent of the mercy of the US.
 
889091
Posts: 736
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:56 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Mar 20, 2022 10:01 am

lightsaber wrote:
In February, Poland lost the wargames they conducted to simulated Russian forces:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... ans-178578

So yes, I believe there is a real risk. If Poland receives F-35s in 4 years, that means in 5 years they will have the first active squadron. I realize we were in the process of selling them a large number of tanks too.


Hasn't this war shown us that tanks are no longer that useful in the battlefield? Who'd want to be a tank crew after seeing the effectiveness of the Javelins against the Russian tanks?
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4521
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Mar 20, 2022 10:06 am

889091 wrote:

Hasn't this war shown us that tanks are no longer that useful in the battlefield? Who'd want to be a tank crew after seeing the effectiveness of the Javelins against the Russian tanks?


Humans are as susceptible to bullets as tanks are to Javelins but we still send humans in….

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
T4thH
Posts: 1670
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:17 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:14 am

flipdewaf wrote:
889091 wrote:

Hasn't this war shown us that tanks are no longer that useful in the battlefield? Who'd want to be a tank crew after seeing the effectiveness of the Javelins against the Russian tanks?


Humans are as susceptible to bullets as tanks are to Javelins but we still send humans in….

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Please note, we are talking about a race between tanks, armor, protection and weapons. So what seems to be correct for today, is likely outdated tomorrow.

Till now, MBTs and other armored vehicles are in best case equipped with passive/active systems, like ERA/NERA armor against HEAT or systems, identifying a tartget LASER, turning the tiurret in direction of the person aiming and triggering the smoke granade launcher or the T90 with systems, blinding the aimer (also the newest T90 version does not have them any more). So these are the softkill systems
-> Late edit: the newest T90 M only hace a reduced Schtora system only with laser warning system + automated smoke granade launcher.

But there are also now active systems available of the group of the hardkill systems, as the Russian ARENA (not protecting against top attack), AMAP-ADS (Europe), Iron Fist (Israel), Thropy (Israel) and many others developed or in development, which have already shown, they are effective against ATGMs/RPGs. As seen in Israel, these active systems are pretty well doing the job against regular ATGMs and RPGs.
-> late edit:Please note, Russian tanks are not equipped with hardkill systems, only for tanks of other countries till now ordered.

In Ukraine, up to date weapons are fighting against a 80th revival army, whis some equipment/upgrades for low number of them to the generation of the 90th or 2000. I hope, you are aware, which site is the 80th revival army.... :duck:

And what will you say, when these active systems are highly integrated in all armored cars? Will you sing the song "The end of the ATGMs and the godmode of the MBTs". Of course, only till the next step of the race will have been implemented?
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1713
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Mar 20, 2022 1:41 pm

889091 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
In February, Poland lost the wargames they conducted to simulated Russian forces:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... ans-178578

So yes, I believe there is a real risk. If Poland receives F-35s in 4 years, that means in 5 years they will have the first active squadron. I realize we were in the process of selling them a large number of tanks too.


Hasn't this war shown us that tanks are no longer that useful in the battlefield? Who'd want to be a tank crew after seeing the effectiveness of the Javelins against the Russian tanks?


What it has shown is that the Russian military is grossly incompetent and the Ukrainian military is flexible, creative, and very determined. Russia has been unable to effectively implement a combined-arms operation. They never established air superiority and that failure is the root of their ineffectiveness. Additionally, Russia has utterly neglected logistics. Large-scale combined arms operations are very logistics intensive. Without that support, maneuver units will flounder and be destroyed piecemeal. I think it's a mistake to conclude MBT and IFV based combat elements are now useless. What it does show is that without proper air support and an effective logistics component, those forces are doomed to failure. Nothing new here. We've known that for a long time. Apparently, the Russian military forgot about those components.
 
johns624
Posts: 5527
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Mar 20, 2022 1:42 pm

889091 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
In February, Poland lost the wargames they conducted to simulated Russian forces:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... ans-178578

So yes, I believe there is a real risk. If Poland receives F-35s in 4 years, that means in 5 years they will have the first active squadron. I realize we were in the process of selling them a large number of tanks too.


Hasn't this war shown us that tanks are no longer that useful in the battlefield? Who'd want to be a tank crew after seeing the effectiveness of the Javelins against the Russian tanks?
NO! Once again, all this shows is that tanks without infantry support are vulnerable, but we've known that since World War Two. Also, Poland lost against simulated Russian forces. Now that we've seen how Russian forces actually perform, would the results have been better?
 
johns624
Posts: 5527
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Mar 20, 2022 1:49 pm

marcelh wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
I would be extremely happy to pull US troops out of Europe. I do not believe the USA can afford to keep so many troops in Europe long term.


Blame your previous governments after 1989. In links I have provided earlier in this thread, it was the US government who was reluctant of a more independent European (EU?) based defense structure, because “less NATO” meant less US influence. IMHO I wasn’t in US interest to have a “one block” strong Europe within NATO, but rather have smaller -more independent- allies. Look at EUKAS; one NATO member (France) is throwing for the bus for another (UK) for the interest of the US in the Pacific.
European NATO members have to cooperate much closer for various reasons:
- More efficient military developement, procurement, training and deployment (not everyone has to have a handful of fighter planes);
- Become less dependent from the USA and more an equal partner within NATO.
- For the EU: have a meaningful military force which suits the economic power they are.

But this isn’t changed in a year; will cost at least 10-15 years. So for the forseeable future Europe is dependent of the mercy of the US.

That sure is a long-winded way to state "I want the French to be in command".
If the EU was handling the current situation, without the US involved, how would they be doing it? Would the same number of airborne intelligence assets be available? Would all of the countries currently supplying arms to Ukraine be still doing it, knowing the US wasn't behind them?
As far as the US throwing France under the bus in the Pacific, that's a very provincial attitude. The world changed while France was screwing up their submarine program and their product no longer fit the situation. Seeing as how it's an even bet whether Australia will get UK or US subs, I don't know why you keep blaming the US. Besides, Australia and the UK have a long defense history together, not withstanding a few oopsies in the past.
 
M564038
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:16 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Mar 20, 2022 2:22 pm

What is this thread even about. NATO spends 20 times what Russia is spending. NATO is increasing it, while Russia exhaust their millitary in Ukraine. Afterwards they’ll be bankrupt. Russia has held Europe hostage with being difficult to read both regarding motives and capability for 100 years. Now we know both. The end game of this conflict must be a Marshall-plan type reconstruction of Russia, with them coming out in the other end much richer, much more democratic, much less brainwashed, and very much smaller. They need to find their proper place as an european nation living in the present.
 
ReverseFlow
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2022 4:40 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Mar 20, 2022 2:37 pm

M564038 wrote:
What is this thread even about. NATO spends 20 times what Russia is spending. NATO is increasing it, while Russia exhaust their millitary in Ukraine. Afterwards they’ll be bankrupt. Russia has held Europe hostage with being difficult to read both regarding motives and capability for 100 years. Now we know both. The end game of this conflict must be a Marshall-plan type reconstruction of Russia, with them coming out in the other end much richer, much more democratic, much less brainwashed, and very much smaller. They need to find their proper place as an european nation living in the present.
How about a Marshall plan for rebuilding Ukraine first?
Preferably paid for by Russia?
The Marshall plan was to rebuild defeated economies to become democratic partners.

One advantage Germany had post-war was a lot of raparations were in goods so the old factories, railways etc were sent to pay (some of) those debts.
This meant Germany could rebuild with new equipment while the Allies got the old stuff!
See the German 'Wirtschaftswunder' of the 50's.

I do wonder how much the russian armys performance is also due to the fact that seemingly most of the troops didn't even know they were going to war!
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 5867
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Mar 20, 2022 2:41 pm

johns624 wrote:
NO! Once again, all this shows is that tanks without infantry support are vulnerable, but we've known that since World War Two.


The arm race between tanks and other systems have been going since WWII. But now the other systems have now out ranged tanks.

A typical tank has a 1-2 km max effective to range? We now have attack drones with 10 km range.

Tanks will still be useful in certain situation, but tank heavy forces are not useful in many scenarios now. Mech infantry is.

bt
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 15602
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Mar 20, 2022 2:45 pm

Regarding tanks, the question to me is : do you need them if you don't plan to invade other countries ? Do you need them for defense ? Sure with the latest tech tanks can be protected against some grenades/missiles, but for how long ? For the price of a high tech tank, you can buy something like 50 high tech anti-tank missiles. Can the tank avoid the 50 missiles, can it take 10 hits ? What can the tank do if you have stealth bombers above, or maybe drones ?
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 5867
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Mar 20, 2022 3:01 pm

Aesma wrote:
For the price of a high tech tank, you can buy something like 50 high tech anti-tank missiles.


Is that just the up front cost? Then you have the cost of training and maintenance. You would really need to compare 1 tank to 4 infantry + an armored vehicle plus missiles.

by
 
ChrisKen
Posts: 1152
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:15 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Mar 20, 2022 3:35 pm

Aesma wrote:
Regarding tanks, the question to me is : do you need them if you don't plan to invade other countries ? Do you need them for defense ?

Fairly sure there's some nation that would love to use them to drive back an invasion force. Anti-tank is useful for slowing and even halting an advance, not good for countering/driving that force back from whence they came though.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 5867
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Mar 20, 2022 3:40 pm

ChrisKen wrote:
Anti-tank is useful for slowing and even halting an advance, not good for countering/driving that force back from whence they came though.


When you are attacking with your tanks, your opponent will be the one using AT weapons.

bt
 
johns624
Posts: 5527
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Mar 20, 2022 3:46 pm

bikerthai wrote:
johns624 wrote:
NO! Once again, all this shows is that tanks without infantry support are vulnerable, but we've known that since World War Two.


The arm race between tanks and other systems have been going since WWII. But now the other systems have now out ranged tanks.

A typical tank has a 1-2 km max effective to range? We now have attack drones with 10 km range.

Tanks will still be useful in certain situation, but tank heavy forces are not useful in many scenarios now. Mech infantry is.

bt
Except that mech infantry is even more vulnerable to ATGMs than tanks. IFVs have much thinner armor. That's why it's called combined arms. You have infantry, armor, artillery and aerial support all providing their strengths while protecting the others' weaknesses. The Russians just don't seem to have figured out how it works in the real world, yet.
 
johns624
Posts: 5527
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Mar 20, 2022 3:47 pm

bikerthai wrote:
ChrisKen wrote:
Anti-tank is useful for slowing and even halting an advance, not good for countering/driving that force back from whence they came though.


When you are attacking with your tanks, your opponent will be the one using AT weapons.

bt
That's like saying that ground attack fighters and attack helos aren't any good because there are manpads.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 5867
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Mar 20, 2022 3:57 pm

It is a circular argument I know. I agree that combined arms is the an effective approach. I do not advocate tank heavy.

bt

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], cpd, phatfarmlines, tmu101 and 22 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos