art wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

art wrote:

A more constructive approach would be to listen to what Ukraine says it needs and to supply those needs. Better than Ukraine's supporters deciding what Ukraine needs.

Things are alot more complex then just giving Ukraine everything they need.

Consider the Training issue.

In order to give Ukraine all the complex hardware, you need to train the soldiers. How many qualified trainers do you think are there in rhe world for these system?

Organizations that does the training do not keep excess trainer around for these situations. They have enough to train the troop they are scheduled for.

Consider the manufacturing schedule.

Similar to refurbishing tanks or ramping up production of tanks. You just can't staff up instantly with production workers. Specially in a tight labor market and the worker need security clearances.

Consider the provision of the GLSBD that is rumored to be available to Ukraine in the spring. That system was more or less at the tail end of the development stage when this war started. No production contract was ever given. So if Ukraine is able to get GLSDB for the Spring offensive, when long lead purchasing contracts often takes a year or two, then there are folks who are working behind rhe screen to make it happen.

Consider the provision of the M1 tanks. Even if the armor does not contain DU, the rest of the armor surely contain materials that are difficult to manufacture and who's raw material is of limited supply. Companies just don't carry extra stock of expensive raw material just for fun.

So the US providing the M1 does require many people to bend over backward to get to this point. The decision to announce it last week would have required weeks if not months of negotiation with the manufacturer and Taiwan in order to finalize the decision.

Ukraine can decide what it needs, but the people who actually have to provide the equipment have to decide what is possible and when.

While some systems may have a political decision attached, we should not paint such a broad stroke when deciding what Ukraine wants vs what it is currently getting.

bt

I take your points about manufacturing new kit and the need to have the capacity to train on any system provided. However, HIMARS is an example of a system that could have been provided earlier but was not for political reasons, I gather. In my recollection the decision to supply was taken because Ukraine was losing badly and needed such a system to stop losing badly, which they did after HIMARS started to be deployed in the field.

There was also the conditions on the ground, what was seen to be the priority and when, as well as what could be provided quickly.
With hindsight maybe more artillery systems sooner, however it was seen that systems that infantry could use against tanks and aircraft were needed and their were a lot available, not only Javelin and NLAW but Panzerfaust 3, the range of Swedish weapons as well as small arms, mines, body armour, medical supplies, small drones, etc.

What did Ukraine think, well one system was in particular well liked, effectiveness, ease of training to even volunteers, as one ex UK military man told the female anchor on Sky News, when making a comparison between training to use a tank and an NLAW, 'I could train you to use this effectively in a day', the reply from the woman, 'I don't know about that'.
(If your country was being invaded you would).
What the Daily Telegraph seemed to think was 'bizarre' but I thought amusing;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=We1FMlMLSpo

More seriously, on the front line in Sumy;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... lt-on-sumy

bikerthai wrote:

Oh yeah,

And there's a thing called a budget. Even in war, there is a budget that needs to be allocated.

Can we really say that giving Ukraine all it wants would fit under the budget that the allies have allocated? By necessity or by law?

bt

I agree that there is a budget. Nevertheless, a lot of the materiel provided by countries is stock that already existed ie no new funds were required to build it. Take the UK Challengers, for example: they were going to be retired in a few years (and many more than the 14 donated), so what does it cost to send them to Ukraine? I don't know my missiles but UK recently retired the Rapier system. If that is a half decent system, why were they not sent to Ukraine? What would that have cost the UK?

art wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Oh yeah,

And there's a thing called a budget. Even in war, there is a budget that needs to be allocated.

Can we really say that giving Ukraine all it wants would fit under the budget that the allies have allocated? By necessity or by law?

bt

I agree that there is a budget. Nevertheless, a lot of the materiel provided by countries is stock that already existed ie no new funds were required to build it. Take the UK Challengers, for example: they were going to be retired in a few years (and many more than the 14 donated), so what does it cost to send them to Ukraine? I don't know my missiles but UK recently retired the Rapier system. If that is a half decent system, why were they not sent to Ukraine? What would that have cost the UK?

I thought the Challenger 2 are being rebuilt into Challenger 3? I think the British Army is reevaluating how many MBTs they will need in the future. They were originally going to go down to 2 battalions but it seems like they might be keeping the third. That will give them 1KRH, 1QRH and 1RTR. That will give them the stock for three armoured brigades. They may also be thinking of holding more back for war stocks and damage replacements.

johns624 wrote:

art wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Oh yeah,

And there's a thing called a budget. Even in war, there is a budget that needs to be allocated.

Can we really say that giving Ukraine all it wants would fit under the budget that the allies have allocated? By necessity or by law?

bt

I agree that there is a budget. Nevertheless, a lot of the materiel provided by countries is stock that already existed ie no new funds were required to build it. Take the UK Challengers, for example: they were going to be retired in a few years (and many more than the 14 donated), so what does it cost to send them to Ukraine? I don't know my missiles but UK recently retired the Rapier system. If that is a half decent system, why were they not sent to Ukraine? What would that have cost the UK?

I thought the Challenger 2 are being rebuilt into Challenger 3? I think the British Army is reevaluating how many MBTs they will need in the future. They were originally going to go down to 2 battalions but it seems like they might be keeping the third. That will give them 1KRH, 1QRH and 1RTR. That will give them the stock for three armoured brigades. They may also be thinking of holding more back for war stocks and damage replacements.

Yes, the Challenger 3 was set, after a battle royale with those wanting to eliminate MBT's, at 148 units, scope for another regiment though that will, of course, affect what can be sent to Ukraine. At least in the near term.

art wrote:

Nevertheless, a lot of the materiel provided by countries is stock that already existed ie no new funds were required to build it.

True, items that are donated are sunk cost. But for items that are refurbished or prepped, budget needed to allocate personel to actually do the work. Some budget could be have come from military overhead budgets, but areas where private contractors are needed, so are additional budget.

Consider the M1 diversion. Now that the initial tranch of M1 are being diverted to Ukraine, the contractor will have to perform extra effort to accelerate the M1 delivery of tanks as well as catching up to the Taiwan order. In industrial parlance this will require expedite fee. $$$$.


bt

GDB wrote:

With hindsight maybe more artillery systems sooner,

May be not. At the time there was sufficient stock of Ukrainian artilery. And despite much hype about NLAWs, in some circles it was Ukrainan artilery that stopped the Russain advance on Kiev.

We did not hear about need for western artilery until the fight moved east and Ukrainian stock is predicted to run low.

Note that training can be complicated with front line action. Typically for more complex systems, you want to pull experience crew for training. So how may tankers or artilery men are you going to pull from the front line at any time to go through the training?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

GDB wrote:

With hindsight maybe more artillery systems sooner,

May be not. At the time there was sufficient stock of Ukrainian artilery. And despite much hype about NLAWs, in some circles it was Ukrainan artilery that stopped the Russain advance on Kiev.

We did not hear about need for western artilery until the fight moved east and Ukrainian stock is predicted to run low.

Note that training can be complicated with front line action. Typically for more complex systems, you want to pull experience crew for training. So how may tankers or artilery men are you going to pull from the front line at any time to go through the training?

bt

It was, though I suspect the targeting of those supply convoys was made easier when infantry AT systems hit the armour, caused that traffic jam and provided an artillery target rich environment.
As well as helping to push what Russian did make it to the main urban areas and their outskirts.
I was thinking more in terms of ex Soviet systems early on, in fairness we now some Eastern NATO nations moved fast here, with more covertly, ammo and small arms from Bulgaria too.

iamlucky13 wrote:

Materially, nothing prevented the provision last summer of the equipment now being provided.

Materially, nothing prevented the POTUS from launching every ICBM we have at the Kremlin and every other Russian military target in our databases either. Neither were ever going to happen.

Revelation wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

Materially, nothing prevented the provision last summer of the equipment now being provided.

Materially, nothing prevented the POTUS from launching every ICBM we have at the Kremlin and every other Russian military target in our databases either. Neither were ever going to happen.

Resorting to the immediate WWIII option was not going to happen, agreed.

iamlucky13 wrote:

Materially, nothing prevented the provision last summer of the equipment now being provided.

At this I agree. At the begining of the war I was hoping all the stuff we are providing now was provided then. But I understand much more now on the nature of logistics and planning.

On the political side though, it would have been difficult for Biden to show his full hand before the Mid-term election. Somehow I get the feeling that if the Democrats retain both the House and Senate, the current packages would have been more robust and less ambiguity on Tanks and Fighter Jets.

bt

GDB wrote:

It was, though I suspect the targeting of those supply convoys was made easier when infantry AT systems hit the armour, caused that traffic jam and provided an artillery target rich environment.

Recall that first video of the ambush of the Russian column? I was perplexed on why the Russian column retreated as soon as soon as rhe artilery started to land. After all, armor is less impacted by artilery.

I understand now that the artilery kept the infantry from deploying to engage the ATGM teams. Without infantry support the tanks did not dare to proceed.

bt

Revelation wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

Materially, nothing prevented the provision last summer of the equipment now being provided.

Materially, nothing prevented the POTUS from launching every ICBM we have at the Kremlin and every other Russian military target in our databases either. Neither were ever going to happen.

I see no productive value in comparing in this manner the options we know we are ok with, because we are doing them, to options we know we are not ok with.

We could have made the decisions we are ok with earlier, and and therefore begun resolving the logistics and training issues earlier.

Since we did not, we should be clear what the effects were, establish more clear goals and make more timely decisions to support those goals.

bikerthai wrote:

art wrote:

A more constructive approach would be to listen to what Ukraine says it needs and to supply those needs. Better than Ukraine's supporters deciding what Ukraine needs.

Things are alot more complex then just giving Ukraine everything they need.

Right. From my perspective, we want to get Ukraine more of what they need, and do it faster than we have been, similar to what art said, but there are practical limits, as bikerthai notes. The timing of the Abrams deliveries are a particularly good example, because of the Politico's inside sources are correct, it sounds like there is a significant amount of work to do to equip them with the intended armor package, and it's unclear if the work also includes modification of existing hulls from A1 to A2 versions, or potentially mechanical overhauls.

It does not sound like the work to make the Abrams available started pre-emptively like it appears to have for the AGM-88 HARM, for example.

The Bradleys, meanwhile, shipped a week ago from apparently existing inventory of the M2A2 ODS version. At the same time, the DoD indicated a couple weeks ago that training was going to commence within a week or two in Germany (and a limited number of images have come out on social media seeming to confirm it has started), suggesting they are starting their training on Bradleys allocated to US units in Europe. Those would be the M2A3, which is very similar in most regards, but has an additional commander's independent thermal viewer that would otherwise help increase the crew's situational awareness and ability to locate threats/targets.

Hopefully a similar approach is being taken with the training on the Abrams.

GLSDB is another example where a fast timeline is not possible, but for somewhat different reasons. It simply was not a munition the US has procured so far. However, there have been rumors that advance work has started on building up an initial inventory, so that if and when the decision is announced to provide them to Ukraine, they can be sent quickly.

Another aspect of training;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdjtJAhasYY

By a non profit group contracted to train the Ukrainian military.

From that Belgium company I posted about recently;
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX-xHR ... -VihKlvKGX

Poland’s prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, has said he is open to supplying Ukraine with F-16 fighter jets if the decision were taken together with Nato allies.

In an interview with the German newspaper Bild, published today, he said:

"If this was a decision of the whole of Nato, I would be for sending these fighter jets."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... ills-three

What actually happened with the MiG-29's mooted to be transferred to Ukraine?

art wrote:

Poland’s prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, has said he is open to supplying Ukraine with F-16 fighter jets if the decision were taken together with Nato allies.

In an interview with the German newspaper Bild, published today, he said:

"If this was a decision of the whole of Nato, I would be for sending these fighter jets."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... ills-three

What actually happened with the MiG-29's mooted to be transferred to Ukraine?

There was this, rumors last year IIRC;
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/pola ... pare-parts

More than one NATO Mig-29 user has sent spares, weapons etc, you have to wonder if yes they did but did the shipment contain a frame or two, maybe more?

Bulgaria was not meant to send anything to Ukraine, we now know that a load of small arms, ammo etc was sent as was suspected last year too.

Really though, for the immediate future, this is a bigger threat to Russian airpower, as well as bolstering Ukrainian defence;
https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxZ5S5A6 ... L97-pDVbv6

GDB wrote:

Shoot the messenger why don't you?

Because I didn't. Eyal didn't provide any actual message, just regurgitated tabloid headlines, basically.

As I noted further and linked, this Dr's credentials in international relations and European affairs is very extensive,

None of that was in evidence in his shallow and superficial commentary. It contributed nothing beyond the most basic UK headlines and there was just blank space where insight and competence should have shown.

if that isn't enough, he wasn't even born in the UK.

Birth or residence don't determine insight, even less a more sincere effort.

Labeling anything that does not assuage Germany's ego as 'typical anglo saxon' is actually offensive, you are labeling everyone as the same, don't like stereotypes about Germany do you?

That is complete and utter fabrication and projection on your part. Exactly none of that nonsense was in my actual post, neither explicitly nor implicitly, if you care to re-check.

Face it, that piece, by a well respected Dr in his field, told some home truths you don't want to hear.

You completely misread my response: I wasn't outraged, just bored by that empty and redundant repetition of rather shallow misconceptions without adding anything new or relevant, far beneath what a reputable analyst actually should have produced.

That was my objection!

No need to go any deeper into this, I had just expected much better, but with personal commentary it's always the luck of the draw, even in the Guardian.

Regarding fighter jets the main questions I see would be:

Given the already relatively depleted state of the ukrainian air force, how much more wear and attrition without resupply would the allies consider "acceptable" during the ongoing fighting, given that Russia will of course see an opportunity emerging there?

Given the very long lead times especially regarding pilot and support staff training, decisions will likely need to be made in advance of public announcements in order to keep delays to a minimum (which would still be uncomfortably long).

Ukraine will definitely receive aviation assets at some point, either during or after the war, so exactly what are the benefits of holding that decision for a long time given the risks?

The benefits of domestic political convenience are at some point outweighed by hard tactical and even strategic consequences, quite similar to the MBT decision, which is why constructive communication between governments and public communication domestically matter (and could often use some improvement, obviously).

Aren't the Polish Mig-29s ex-Luftwaffe ones and therefore they would need German government approval to send them to the Ukraine.

As for air support for ground troops, GLSBD can do some of that.

There is a short write in on the KOZ web site on the versatility of GLSBD.

GLSDB is a different beast. The key words from that video up above are “launcher-independent.” While the GLSDB can be fired from a MLRS launcher, it can also be fired from … pretty much anything. That includes a truck with a bunch of pipe sections mounted on the back.

They can set up a bunch of cargo container with a make-shift launchers and away you go.

As for the concern that the slower GLSDB would be easier to shoot down than the regular rockets, the answer is so what? If the Russian expend the more expensive S300 or 400 SAMs to shoot down a SDB, then it's a win right? Shooting down the SBD would expose the SAM site to attack.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

As for air support for ground troops, GLSBD can do some of that.

There is a short write in on the KOZ web site on the versatility of GLSBD.

GLSDB is a different beast. The key words from that video up above are “launcher-independent.” While the GLSDB can be fired from a MLRS launcher, it can also be fired from … pretty much anything. That includes a truck with a bunch of pipe sections mounted on the back.

They can set up a bunch of cargo container with a make-shift launchers and away you go.

As for the concern that the slower GLSDB would be easier to shoot down than the regular rockets, the answer is so what? If the Russian expend the more expensive S300 or 400 SAMs to shoot down a SDB, then it's a win right? Shooting down the SBD would expose the SAM site to attack.

bt

It seems to me at a basic level, either GLSDB or GMLRS should be able to be launched from improvised launchers as long as they target coordinates are programmed into the guidance section, but GLSDB should have greater leeway for initial aiming accuracy.

However, I suspect the reason Ukraine doesn't seem to be prioritizing requests for more HIMARS, even though they have been highly effective, is because the main limit on using them isn't the number of launchers, but the difficulty finding targets worth expending the costly, limited quantity M31 rockets on. At first it was easy, but between elimination and Russia realizing they needed to hide their stuff better, it's takes more effort and time to locate targets now.

So I'd still say the most important gain from GLSDB would be the extended range, which would give Ukraine a lot more objects in range to target, rather than the ability to improvise launchers.

Regarding probability of intercept - my instinctive response is also "so what?" However, when you consider that Ukraine's air defenses have reached the point of intercepting the majority of the cruise missiles Russia launches, it seems in theory that SDB's gliding at cruise missile-like speeds and higher altitudes would be similarly vulnerable if Russia's air defenses were actually effective. On the other hand, SDB's are much smaller than cruise missiles, and should have a shorter detection range.

And yes, forcing Russia to waste expensive SAM's on cheap SDB's is still a gain.

All things considered, I suspect Ukraine will tend to use GMLRS for targets within its range that are likely to be well-defended, and GLSDB not only for more distant targets, but also for less well-defended targets.

iamlucky13 wrote:

However, I suspect the reason Ukraine doesn't seem to be prioritizing requests for more HIMARS, even though they have been highly effective, is because the main limit on using them isn't the number of launchers, but the difficulty finding targets worth expending the costly, limited quantity M31 rockets on.

At the Wiki price of $40,000 ea, the GLSDB can expand the list of targets, not only at the high end, but at the low end as well. Instead of hitting a front line BMP with a ATGM, you can target it (or a bunker) with a GLSDB.

So the limit would be just the ability to supply the rocket in sufficient volume.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

However, I suspect the reason Ukraine doesn't seem to be prioritizing requests for more HIMARS, even though they have been highly effective, is because the main limit on using them isn't the number of launchers, but the difficulty finding targets worth expending the costly, limited quantity M31 rockets on.

At the Wiki price of $40,000 ea, the GLSDB can expand the list of targets, not only at the high end, but at the low end as well. Instead of hitting a front line BMP with a ATGM, you can target it (or a bunker) with a GLSDB.

So the limit would be just the ability to supply the rocket in sufficient volume.

bt

It seems to me that your government is listening to your advice when it comes to SDBs!
Translated from a live ticker here in Europe :

After months of hesitation, the US wants to supply Ukraine with longer-range weapons. According to government sources on Thursday, the next military aid package will include weapons with approximately double the range of the systems previously made available to the Ukrainian military. Part of the package, estimated at $2.17 billion, will be so-called Small Diameter Bombs - bombs with a small diameter, SDB - which are considered precision weapons.

The new package is due to be announced tomorrow, Friday 03 February and our friends in Ukraine will be more than happy about it for sure!!!

oldJoe wrote:

It seems to me that your government is listening to your advice when it comes to SDBs!

From what I know about government procurement and production system, my Government probably had the ball rolling before I even mentioned it here on A-net.

Although I admit that I was aware of this capability before last year.

bt

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/2 ... sian-shift

It is not yet compatible with HIMARS, but the US will provide Ukraine with new launchers for the rockets, sources said.

Hidden in a shipping container no doubt

bt

bikerthai wrote:

oldJoe wrote:

It seems to me that your government is listening to your advice when it comes to SDBs!

From what I know about government procurement and production system, my Government probably had the ball rolling before I even mentioned it here on A-net.

Although I admit that I was aware of this capability before last year.

bt

Agreed, in particular for this case. Saab indicated back in late October that there was something in the works for GLSDB:

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... ery-weapon

It's possible that it was simply a country other than Ukraine deciding GLSDB was a capability they wanted, but the US or any other country beginning preparations to provide them to Ukraine definitely also fits. The latter would be the kind of more proactive approach I was lamenting the general lack of earlier this week, and that I hope to see more of going forward.

A map for the claimed GLSDB range shows how it is a perfect fit for Ukraine's current situation. Russian forces in almost all of occupied Ukraine except Crimea are in range. Very little of Russia is within range to cause anxiety for those concerned about increasing Ukraine's capabilities seeming escalatory:

https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1620 ... qFrf0sAAAA

Aren't the Polish Mig-29s ex-Luftwaffe ones and therefore they would need German government approval to send them to the Ukraine.

Some are, not all though.

Klaus wrote:

GDB wrote:

Shoot the messenger why don't you?

Because I didn't. Eyal didn't provide any actual message, just regurgitated tabloid headlines, basically.

As I noted further and linked, this Dr's credentials in international relations and European affairs is very extensive,

None of that was in evidence in his shallow and superficial commentary. It contributed nothing beyond the most basic UK headlines and there was just blank space where insight and competence should have shown.

if that isn't enough, he wasn't even born in the UK.

Birth or residence don't determine insight, even less a more sincere effort.

Labeling anything that does not assuage Germany's ego as 'typical anglo saxon' is actually offensive, you are labeling everyone as the same, don't like stereotypes about Germany do you?

That is complete and utter fabrication and projection on your part. Exactly none of that nonsense was in my actual post, neither explicitly nor implicitly, if you care to re-check.

Face it, that piece, by a well respected Dr in his field, told some home truths you don't want to hear.

You completely misread my response: I wasn't outraged, just bored by that empty and redundant repetition of rather shallow misconceptions without adding anything new or relevant, far beneath what a reputable analyst actually should have produced.

That was my objection!

No need to go any deeper into this, I had just expected much better, but with personal commentary it's always the luck of the draw, even in the Guardian.

You'll be saying Eyal published in the Sun or Daily Mail next, the link wasn't from those nor the increasingly batty Telegraph, as you should be aware I don't trust or use those, maybe go all the way and call me a Brexiteer next? Going after the messenger and sources that clearly have the knowledge to comment on this and sorry if their and plenty of others conclusions annoy you.
It's still true though, Germany has lost trust and influence over this however much you try and throw an unwelcome message back in my face.

You might be shocked to know, if you choose to believe it, that I certainly do NOT see this as a good thing, not for Germany, not for NATO, the EU and most of all, Ukraine.
No one in NATO, except the essentially hostile Orban and the mercurial leader in Turkey perhaps, welcomes this and with the exception of some statements by the PiS for domestic electoral consumption, have tried to help the German government without rancor and mostly as is often the case, behind the scenes.

Have you wondered if that other NATO members might feel played by Germany somewhat, the goalpost shifting and terrible political communications?

It's not as if they cannot react to a sudden shock and fast changing situation, that upends long held policies, Putin was certainly banking on this not happening;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... ly-ukraine

Germany has today approved the delivery of Leopard 1 tanks.

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/bundesre ... e19b9f27f9

There is talk about 29 Leo 1 tanks already in advanced state of refurbishment (more are in discussion). There are issues, however, with ammunition, as Germany has no 105mm Ammo left and Brazil declined to deliver.

TheSonntag wrote:

Germany has today approved the delivery of Leopard 1 tanks.

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/bundesre ... e19b9f27f9

There is talk about 29 Leo 1 tanks already in advanced state of refurbishment (more are in discussion). There are issues, however, with ammunition, as Germany has no 105mm Ammo left and Brazil declined to deliver.

Want to make a guess who has 105mm ammo, possibly loads of it and is preparing to deploy a new weapons platform that uses 105mm ammo.
Placing bets the ammo will be available around the same time certain tanks are ready for delivery.

TheSonntag wrote:

Germany has today approved the delivery of Leopard 1 tanks.

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/bundesre ... e19b9f27f9

There is talk about 29 Leo 1 tanks already in advanced state of refurbishment (more are in discussion). There are issues, however, with ammunition, as Germany has no 105mm Ammo left and Brazil declined to deliver.

That Belgium company, OIP, that I linked a report about in reply 11887, has 50 Leopard 1’s.
Though they won’t have modern armour protection nor likely very modern fire control and optics.

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany ... einmetall/

Update: Politico states transfer of 88 Leopard 1 tanks has been approved. Now we are starting talking.

"Though they won’t have modern armour protection nor likely very modern fire control and optics." It depends, at least the Leopard 1A5 version has a stabilised optic which is based on the Leopard 2 technology. This leaves the old gun, but the accuracy is fine.

Obviously still good against older tanks.

TheSonntag wrote:

Obviously still good against older tanks.

And that is all that Russia has to offer this point forward.

So bring on the Leo 1.

And while we're at it let's re-enact the Valley of Tears (any Centuions left out there?)

bt

Somebody has a wicked sense of humor, up there in the heavenly office (or whatever the proper name is, in English).
Leo 2 was developed, from what I've read, because after figuring out, what T-64 is, some Western militaries apparently had a fit, saying that against T-64, going into battle in Leo 1 was basically like driving a cardboard box (not literally, but close).

Now, this theory will be put to the test -- Leo 1 against T-62s, and also simplified T-64's (a.k.a. T-72 and derivatives, up to T-90).

bikerthai wrote:

At the Wiki price of $40,000 ea, the GLSDB can expand the list of targets, not only at the high end, but at the low end as well. Instead of hitting a front line BMP with a ATGM, you can target it (or a bunker) with a GLSDB.

So the limit would be just the ability to supply the rocket in sufficient volume.

bt

Visual interpretation of range, with yellow being GMLRS, red being GLSDB...



Source: https://twitter.com/ukraine_map/status/ ... 8143124480?

Ukraine's Zelensky vows to hasten EU membership after Kyiv summit

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/2023 ... -sanctions

Good kill on a rare beast;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0iCHSAuGqg

Precision artillery against legacy Soviet;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_Yw6vBzoWY

TheSonntag wrote:

Aren't the Polish Mig-29s ex-Luftwaffe ones and therefore they would need German government approval to send them to the Ukraine.

Some are, not all though.

Which are ex-Soviet, so how far back along the line do you go with this government approval needed?

Just deliver them if they are needed…

cpd wrote:

TheSonntag wrote:

Aren't the Polish Mig-29s ex-Luftwaffe ones and therefore they would need German government approval to send them to the Ukraine.

Some are, not all though.

Which are ex-Soviet, so how far back along the line do you go with this government approval needed?

Just deliver them if they are needed…

They are ex German, flown from 1990-2003.
Never used operationally such as in Operation Allied Force in 1999, where Germany used air power in action for the first time post WW2, with SEAD Tornado ECR's.
Since though the Mig was seen as very good at lower speed dogfights, the helmet mounted sight and at the time, the IR missile, was better than what the West had.
But not the case with BVR, inferior radar, previous generation fire control, poor displays and situational awareness, these also were export model downgrades in the first place.
Add in poor range, at least prior to Polish use they had non NATO standard IFF and poor nav equipment.

Poland did install NATO standard equipment to allow them to operate longer term, the above though should demonstrate that against the one overmatch besides sheer numbers that Russia has, is their long and longer ranged radars and AAM's from upgraded SU-27's and Mig-31's respectively, if anyone thinks that more Mig 29's are the answer, they are not.
Maybe that has been a consideration in supplying Ukraine with them too.
They've integrated HARM, doing so with JDAM, however the basic limitation of the radar and fire control means it's very doubtful you can stick a better BVR AAM on them,
Those Russian types also stay within their airspace, especially for the short ranged Mig-29.

The post reunification German AF's evaluation was that it was good for point defence against major targets, like cities.
That's all.

This talk of German MiG's makes me wonder if, apart from spares, Germany still has weapons for them.

Ukraine is barely hanging on in Bakhmut. What's going to happen when Russia launches the estimated 150,000 extra soldiers they are deploying? I'm afraid that a handful of tanks may be too little too late to save Ukraine.

art wrote:

This talk of German MiG's makes me wonder if, apart from spares, Germany still has weapons for them.

Not having flown them for 20 years, sold them and presumably all the spares, equipment and weapons to Poland, if shelf life on missiles still remained, what do you think?

victrola wrote:

I'm afraid that a handful of tanks may be too little too late to save Ukraine.

OH REALLY?

They have not been able to take that city for a year now with all armor and artilery they had. Why would you think 150000 unsupported infantry will be able to take all of Ukaine?

And as many have stated. Bakhmut cab be sacrificed without significant strategic consequences.

bt

GLSDB as part of latest US package;
https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxNtSlbb ... tlCLJ95KSf

Source below from Guardian Ukraine Day 345;
The US has announced a new military aid package for Ukraine worth $2.175bn (£2.2bn). The package will include precision-guided rockets and HAWK air-defence firing units, as well as other munitions and weapons, the US state department said. Significantly, it includes the Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) for the first time, which will double Ukraine’s strike range and allow Ukraine’s military to strike deep behind the frontlines of the war.

Not got a link to a full or at least published detailed list yet.

Also, these Leo 1's;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... nk-exports
Plenty more where they came from, like at that store in Belgium.

Speaking of armoured vehicles;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... ange-sides

victrola wrote:

Ukraine is barely hanging on in Bakhmut. What's going to happen when Russia launches the estimated 150,000 extra soldiers they are deploying? I'm afraid that a handful of tanks may be too little too late to save Ukraine.

Very simple answer: delivery of cannon fodder and the last message from Zelenskij: "Fortress Bakhmut" is not abandoned

bikerthai wrote:

victrola wrote:

I'm afraid that a handful of tanks may be too little too late to save Ukraine.

OH REALLY?

They have not been able to take that city for a year now with all armor and artilery they had. Why would you think 150000 unsupported infantry will be able to take all of Ukaine?

And as many have stated. Bakhmut cab be sacrificed without significant strategic consequences.

bt

I do not think that 150,000 unsupported infantry will be able to take all of Ukraine. However, they just might tip the balance in the Donbas. Currently we are in a stalemate with, if anything, Ukraine is losing some ground. Having an extra 150,000 soldiers shooting at you will make life more difficult for the Ukrainians.

The Ukrainians seem unable to advance at this point. I see a stalemate with years and years of carnage to come. I hope I am wrong.

Phosphorus wrote:

Somebody has a wicked sense of humor, up there in the heavenly office (or whatever the proper name is, in English).
Leo 2 was developed, from what I've read, because after figuring out, what T-64 is, some Western militaries apparently had a fit, saying that against T-64, going into battle in Leo 1 was basically like driving a cardboard box (not literally, but close).

Now, this theory will be put to the test -- Leo 1 against T-62s, and also simplified T-64's (a.k.a. T-72 and derivatives, up to T-90).

Have I overslept the last few months or is it that the ladies and gentlemen named Javelin, Swichblade, Stugna-P etc. have taken over the work much easier and more effectively and cheaply? The old-fashioned tank-versus-tank mindset is long outdated. According to my former neighbor, a tank battalion commander, these tanks are used more for storming heavily fortified positions

victrola wrote:

Ukraine is barely hanging on in Bakhmut. What's going to happen when Russia launches the estimated 150,000 extra soldiers they are deploying?

The chance to strengthen the Ukrainian armed forces more before a possible Russian build up leading to a spring offensive was there.

victrola wrote:

I'm afraid that a handful of tanks may be too little too late to save Ukraine.

Not only that. Has Russia not shown that throwing the under-trained into this conflict produces poor results? Would those tanks get deployed with semi-trained crews if Russia attacked before the end of March and made headway?

oldJoe wrote:

victrola wrote:

Ukraine is barely hanging on in Bakhmut. What's going to happen when Russia launches the estimated 150,000 extra soldiers they are deploying? I'm afraid that a handful of tanks may be too little too late to save Ukraine.

Very simple answer: delivery of cannon fodder and the last message from Zelenskij: "Fortress Bakhmut" is not abandoned

From what transpires, Bakhmut today IS the hell on Earth. Verdun of 21st century, come think of that.

Which does mean that elimination of enemy soldiers and materiel, before they reached the front lines, should have been and should still be stepped up. Missile strikes on every troop concentration, even if its' 500 km from Ukraine's border deep into Russia. Blown up railway bridges across Don, Volga, Kama, Ural and Emba rivers, Manych and Kuma too. Full destruction of airfields West of the Urals, so they cannot airlift stuff.

Tomahawks and their land launchers can help achieve that.

Useful corollary. Rostov, Moscow, St. Petersburg. Kursk, Smolensk, Oryol, Volgograd et.al. have to learn to live with air raid sirens, hiding in shelters, because Tomahawks are coming, and they just might miss. No ruskie should feel safe, unless they are in Siberia, clearing snow. All of it.

victrola wrote:

The Ukrainians seem unable to advance at this point. I see a stalemate with years and years of carnage to come.

I do not see a stalemate.

What you are seeing is the impact of winter weather and muddy condition. Ukraine is unable to use maneuver warfare like they did with the Kharkiv offensive.

The Ukrainian are only attacking where they think they can gain with minimal losses setting themselves up for the Spring offensive.

I see them waiting for the GLSBD, Bradley's and Leopard tanks before they make their move. My guess is they will try two fronts at once.

I expect the ground ofensive will start 2-4 weeks after the first GLSBD strike.

bt