Its official now: Germany will initially deliver 14 Leopard 2A6 tanks. Official statement:

Der Sprecher der Bundesregierung, Steffen Hebestreit, teilt mit:
Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz hat am Mittwoch im Kabinett
angekündigt, dass Deutschland die militärische Unterstützung für die
Ukraine weiter verstärken wird. Die Bundesregierung habe
entschieden, den ukrainischen Streitkräften Kampfpanzer vom Typ
„Leopard 2“ zur Verfügung zu stellen. Das ist das Ergebnis intensiver
Beratungen, die mit Deutschlands engsten europäischen und
internationalen Partnern stattgefunden haben.
„Diese Entscheidung folgt unserer bekannten Linie, die Ukraine nach
Kräften zu unterstützen. Wir handeln international eng abgestimmt
und koordiniert“, sagte der Bundeskanzler in Berlin.
Das Ziel ist es, rasch zwei Panzer-Bataillone mit Leopard-2-Panzern
für die Ukraine zusammenzustellen. Dazu wird Deutschland in
einem ersten Schritt eine Kompanie mit 14 Leopard-2-A6-Panzern
zur Verfügung stellen, die aus Beständen der Bundeswehr stammen.
Weitere europäische Partner werden ihrerseits Panzer vom Typ
Leopard-2 übergeben. Die Ausbildung der ukrainischen Besatzungen
soll in Deutschland zügig beginnen. Zu dem Paket werden neben der
Ausbildung auch Logistik, Munition und Wartung der Systeme
gehören.
Deutschland werde den Partnerländern, die zügig Leopard-2-Panzer
aus ihren Beständen an die Ukraine liefern wollen, die
entsprechenden Genehmigungen zur Weitergabe erteilen.

The aim is to arm 2 Panzer-batallions fast. Training will take place in Germany, and Germany will give Partner nations a fast approval to send their tanks to Ukraine, too. The package includes training, ammo, logistics.

The text says "initially 14" which hints there is more to follow.

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschl ... 598f821bfa

Some more background information: Der Spiegel reports Europe will send up to 80 tanks. One Batallion will consist of German, Dutch and Spanish Leopard 2A6, one Batallion will consist of Leopard 2A4 from Poland and Norway. A 3rd Batallion will come from the US with 30 Abrams. The text does not say anything about the Challenger tanks.

GDB wrote:

TheSonntag wrote:

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/krieg-in-der-ukraine-80-kampfpanzer-sollen-aus-europa-geliefert-werden-a-512428ea-fbf2-44a9-8cee-e8598f821bfa

Some more background information: Der Spiegel reports Europe will send up to 80 tanks. One Batallion will consist of German, Dutch and Spanish Leopard 2A6, one Batallion will consist of Leopard 2A4 from Poland and Norway. A 3rd Batallion will come from the US with 30 Abrams. The text does not say anything about the Challenger tanks.

Beat me to it!
We’ve heard a lot about pressure on allies, in that spirit I would like to see two more squadrons of Challenger 2’s.
Which by summer could make a total of around 150 Western MBT’s.
Half what Ukraine says they need but enough to make a very significant difference.

The local newspaper SMH was reporting on this and in the comments we had a lot of "ordinary" Australians suggesting that this will lead to "nuclear" confrontation or that the tanks will be no match for "tactical nuclear" weapons.

The pro-Putin comment army are certainly very active which just shows how desperate things are getting. These tanks will make a real difference as long as they are properly used and there is adequate protection to keep Russian aircraft away.

One propaganda mob has called for the destruction of the German parliament:
https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/pu ... 9db2e7cfa3

Things are getting desperate - so this measure will likely work.

TheSonntag wrote:

Its official now: Germany will initially deliver 14 Leopard 2A6 tanks. Official statement:

Der Sprecher der Bundesregierung, Steffen Hebestreit, teilt mit:
Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz hat am Mittwoch im Kabinett
angekündigt, dass Deutschland die militärische Unterstützung für die
Ukraine weiter verstärken wird. Die Bundesregierung habe
entschieden, den ukrainischen Streitkräften Kampfpanzer vom Typ
„Leopard 2“ zur Verfügung zu stellen.

Good result. I hope the Leo 2's can start to be used in a couple of months' time.

I retract my criticism of Scholz if the plan all along was to pressurise the US into supplying M1's in addition to coping with domestic resistance to supplying Leo 2's.

Could this also push the UK towards increasing the number of Challengers it sends? Hope so. Another 10 would be a good addition.

Speaking before Germany's parliament, Chancellor Olaf Scholz insisted it was "right to wait" before deciding to deliver Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine.

https://www.dw.com/en/german-chancellor ... a-64509633

Is this guy for real?

L410Turbolet wrote:

Speaking before Germany's parliament, Chancellor Olaf Scholz insisted it was "right to wait" before deciding to deliver Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine.

https://www.dw.com/en/german-chancellor ... a-64509633

Is this guy for real?

A true politician. Spin control.

History will only remember that tanks were sent.

bt

art wrote:

Good result. I hope the Leo 2's can start to be used in a couple of months' time.

I retract my criticism of Scholz if the plan all along was to pressurise the US into supplying M1's in addition to coping with domestic resistance to supplying Leo 2's.

Could this also push the UK towards increasing the number of Challengers it sends? Hope so. Another 10 would be a good addition.

So they wanted the US to send M1's which they openly state are more maintenance intensive, use too much fuel, so basically just symbolic to say the US is also on the hook, hmmm.
As for the maintenance intensive, reminds me of the Sherman, they were fairly easy to repair, seems to be the same way with the M1. I think just as when the F-15 Eagle was first deployed, the computers and sensors were the main items causing despatch issues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX8TZjQvAvw

par13del wrote:

So they wanted the US to send M1's which they openly state are more maintenance intensive, use too much fuel, so basically just symbolic to say the US is also on the hook, hmmm.

30 M1 is not a symbolic gesture. My take it that they were concerned that the standard way the US handle the maintenance of the M1 will not work in Ukraine. So the task for the planners is to develop a maintenance plan for the M1 that would work for Ukaine in the short term.

As for the fuel issue, I don't think it would be too bad for a short 150km campaign to Crimea. Just send along a few more tanker trucks along with the tanks.

After all, cross finger, the mild winter should help with the fuel stockpile.

bt

For the Ukraine it would be much more helpful to have only the Leo2 send to the them, while the extra M1's, Challenger 2's and Leclerc would serve as reserves to cover the gap the Leo2's leave behind. Guess it "easier" to have Ukraine deal with that mess in an actual war than to have to coordinate that in the relative safety of Europe's heartland...

Taxi645 wrote:

For the Ukraine it would be much more helpful to have only the Leo2 send to the them, while the extra M1's, Challenger 2's and Leclerc would serve as reserves to cover the gap the Leo2's leave behind. Guess it "easier" to have Ukraine deal with that mess in an actual war than to have to coordinate that in the relative safety of Europe's heartland...

Well it appears that the push for M1's was / is more political versus needing them for actual combat, so what they can actually do in combat, is not the main driver. The US can deliver much more than 30 in short order if that is the tank they want Ukraine to use. I suspect those who think there is an ulterior motive to have all of Europe use American tanks after the conflict is holding sway.

par13del wrote:

art wrote:

Good result. I hope the Leo 2's can start to be used in a couple of months' time.

I retract my criticism of Scholz if the plan all along was to pressurise the US into supplying M1's in addition to coping with domestic resistance to supplying Leo 2's.

Could this also push the UK towards increasing the number of Challengers it sends? Hope so. Another 10 would be a good addition.

So they wanted the US to send M1's which they openly state are more maintenance intensive, use too much fuel, so basically just symbolic to say the US is also on the hook, hmmm.
As for the maintenance intensive, reminds me of the Sherman, they were fairly easy to repair, seems to be the same way with the M1. I think just as when the F-15 Eagle was first deployed, the computers and sensors were the main items causing despatch issues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX8TZjQvAvw

Thing is that many hundreds of MBT's could be supplied by the US.

Klaus wrote:

astuteman wrote:

Ignorance?
It's based on having lived 60 years with the threat of Nuclear destruction, and 40 years of working in the defence industry has told me.
For a start the EU hasn't existed for 75 years.

We have a separate thread to continue these specific discussions where I have responded to your post:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1479107&p=23642949#p23642949

Thank you for redirecting the NATO content.

And I acknowledge your predictions on where things would end up turned out to be correct.

Yet, overall, I feel Germany could have come out of all this looking like a leader, but instead looks like a reluctant partner who needs to be goaded into action.

Here's a few headlines from the last few days sitting in my browser history:

Tanks, but no tanks: What’s the matter with Germany?

German government split as Olaf Scholz overrules own foreign minister over Leopard tanks

Scholz caves in to international pressure on tanks to Ukraine

It's gotta be frustrating for the average German. They end up making the sacrifices in the end, yet their government does so in a way that makes them look like they are only doing so under duress. They deserve a victory lap, but it just feels wrong to do so. I guess this is the price to be paid for having Ruzzia-lovers prominently in the mix.

It's kind of like a family where the kids are in one room while mom and dad have a god-awful row in the next room, then the parents come out and say let's go out to a nice family dinner. No one feels like celebrating, yet they go through the motions anyway, wondering when the next fight will break out.

And I get it, politics are ugly everywhere. This is just more of that, ugly politics, played out on an international stage.

Revelation wrote:

It's kind of like a family where the kids are in one room while mom and dad have a god-awful row in the next room, then the parents come out and say let's go out to a nice family dinner. No one feels like celebrating, yet they go through the motions anyway, wondering when the next fight will break out.

All will be forgiven when the kids win the home coming game.

Taxi645 wrote:

For the Ukraine it would be much more helpful to have only the Leo2 send to the them, while the extra M1's, Challenger 2's and Leclerc would serve as reserves to cover the gap the Leo2's leave behind.

I've read my share of WWII after action reports. Planners pre-battle always have a reserve. Even if it's just one platoon.

bt

victrola wrote:

Why is Ukraine struggling to hold the Bakhmut area? If they can't hang on there, what are going to do when the Russians unleash the offensive they are preparing? Could it be that Ukraine is running out of steam? Or is Ukraine's strategy in the Bakhmut area to apply just enough force to hold on and let the Russians exhaust themselves with staggering casualties? Does anyone have an idea of the casualty ratios in this battle?

(a) the defensive lines are all prepared around Bakhmut, why move back just to re-establish more?
(b) Bakhmut itself is not key, but it defends the road to Slovyansk which is a regional hub which is vital
(c) the focus on Bakhmut was/is a power play by Wagner Group / Preghozin.
(d) casualties are always high when you are on the offense and using human-wave tactics against entrenched defenders with artillery support, think WW1 trench warfare...

art wrote:

I retract my criticism of Scholz if the plan all along was to pressurise the US into supplying M1's in addition to coping with domestic resistance to supplying Leo 2's.

I see it quite the opposite. IMO the linkage between the Abrams and the Leopard was a failure on the part of German Ruzzia-lovers who knew the US was against sending Abrams. They thought this would prevent the Leopards being approved, but in the real world what happened is that it made the US reconsider then reverse their decision on the Abrams. The end result was the exact opposite of what was intended, now both Abrams and Leopard are approved for use in Ukraine.

Then we saw the German government say there was no such linkage just a day or two after many reports said Sholz was the one who made such a linkage ( ref: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/na ... s-00078507 ). We also have the report that Sholz had to overrule his own FM ( https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/ ... -minister/ ) on the export license issue.

It's clear to me all along that Sholz's plan was to not approve the Leopard. He put up as many obstacles as he could for as long as he could, but in the end he lost, his stance was no longer politically viable.

L410Turbolet wrote:

Speaking before Germany's parliament, Chancellor Olaf Scholz insisted it was "right to wait" before deciding to deliver Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine.

https://www.dw.com/en/german-chancellor ... a-64509633

Is this guy for real?

Yep, that supports the idea that his true desire was to prevent the approval of the Leopard.

art wrote:

Thing is that many hundreds of MBT's could be supplied by the US.

You know that, I know that, and Ruzzia knows that. More will follow.

The last day or so represents a major reversal in fortunes for Ruzzia, IMO.

It's hard to see what if anything Ruzzia can do to counter such superior arms.

Revelation wrote:

art wrote:

Thing is that many hundreds of MBT's could be supplied by the US.

You know that, I know that, and Ruzzia knows that. More will follow.

The last day or so represents a major reversal in fortunes for Ruzzia, IMO.

It's hard to see what if anything Ruzzia can do to counter such superior arms.

I hope Russia has no real counter. The idea of MBT's was to give Ukraine a decisive advantage in offense. If Russia has nothing to match western MBT's what can Russia do to defend hard won ground from counter offensive operations by UAF?

Just a thought: are there many road bridges in Ukraine able to take the weight of a main battle tank?

art wrote:

If Russia has nothing to match western MBT's what can Russia do to defend hard won ground from counter offensive operations by UAF?

Not much. In theory they have a stronger air force, but they already show they suffer when they expose it. Defeating tanks means flying low which means exposure to MANPADs, and the Ukrainians have been given the world's best MANPADs in large quantities. Now Patriot is on the way which means even getting to the battlefield requires flying low. All the assets Ukraine has been given to fight drones work quite well against fighters, which is what most of them were designed to target.

art wrote:

Just a thought: are there many road bridges in Ukraine able to take the weight of a main battle tank?

As mentioned, portable bridging assets designed to support Western MBTs may be used. Keep in mind Abrams was originally designed as a NATO asset to defeat the Warsaw Pact. In essence this is its home turf. All these logistical issues have been considered right from the start. The German government announcement says the package includes training, ammunition and logistical support. The same will be true of Challenger and Abrams.

Biden just announced 31 Abrams Tanks.

And Biden really seemed like an old man who should not have a 2nd turn. Isnt there a reasonable cadidate for GOP and Dems who isnt Maga, Communist and young?

TheSonntag wrote:

And Biden really seemed like an old man who should not have a 2nd turn. Isnt there a reasonable cadidate for GOP and Dems who isnt Maga, Communist and young?

Please, let's focus on "Russian Invasion of Ukraine" and talk about future US presidential candidates elsewhere...

While everyone pays attention to the international politics, the UAF keeps doing its thing:

Explosions are reported in Simferopol, Sevastopol and Armiansk in occupied Crimea.

Ref: https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/ ... 5730764801

On the evening of January 24, a blast rocked the barracks where more than 200 Russian soldiers were stationed in Mariupol, temporarily captured by the Russian invaders.

Ref: https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/36 ... iupol.html

Next up: A campaign to finally get ATACMS, and the ability to use them to strike Russian military stockpiles within Russia?

Ukraine wants longer range missiles as Russia learns from its mistakes
...
In particular, he said, “everything is moved to the southern regions through the Crimean peninsula” from logistical hubs in the Russian region of Rostov.

“If you ask what’s critical for the Russian Federation, the centers of gravity are these very hubs, and they need to be struck in order to disrupt the supply systems of all kinds,” Skibitsky said.

And this requires strikes against facilities not only in Russian-occupied Crimea, “but also in the Russian Federation,” Skibitsky said.

He described Russia’s logistics systems as lying 80 to 120 kilometers (50-75 miles) from the front line, which means Ukraine needs longer-range strike systems to target them.

Ref: https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/25/europe/u ... index.html

It probably won't happen for a many months, but it does seem they are starting up a campaign to move it from the unthinkable to the necessary.

KYIV, Jan 25 (Reuters) - Ukraine will now push for Western fourth generation fighter jets such as the U.S. F-16 after securing supplies of main battle tanks, an adviser to Ukraine's defence minister said on Wednesday...

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/uk ... 023-01-25/

What! Anybody would think that Ukraine is trying to win the war!

I confess that I have never accepted the many arguments levelled against the usefulness of Ukraine getting hold of more fighters. But, training aside, would F-21 be of much use? Gripen or F-18 would be much better suited to Ukraine's wartime needs, I think. In the short term, though, it would be good to send the MiG-29's offered but whose supply to Ukraine was too frightening to be allowed to happen.

Revelation wrote:

It probably won't happen for a many months, but it does seem they are starting up a campaign to move it from the unthinkable to the necessary.

They will probably get the 150km GLSBD in time for the Spring Offensive. I don't see ATACM unless the GLSBD can not reach the Kerch Bridge.

I don't see US rockets hitting anywhere in Russia. But I can see Ukrainian rockets built with US tech doing that job.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

I don't see US rockets hitting anywhere in Russia. But I can see Ukrainian rockets built with US tech doing that job.

I agree – that is a crucial distinction under the circumstances, and a plausible scenario given what we've already seen with the Neptune cruise missiles sinking the Moskva, the drone boats and the repurposed soviet targeting drones!

Speaking of Kerch, the following explainer showed up on my u2b feed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eetGDc3w8oE

It's about two months old. I think it's well done.

It makes me wonder exactly how the device was triggered. He suggests it would have been better for the truck to blow up at the bridge's highest elevation so perhaps it wasn't optimal, yet it did go off when the truck was alongside the train loaded with fuel/oil which took the rail bridge out of service so IMO it's hard to find fault.

The ability to have the bomb go off when it was alongside the train suggests to me it was triggered by a human rather than a timer, or maybe it was a timer that just happened to go off at a favorable time. The amount of fuel in those train cars is the reason why the damage is so significant. The rail side literally was melted by the intensity of the heat generated by the burning fuel. The bomb itself didn't have the energy to create such damage.

The video also says that if the driver was in the left hand lane then the explosion could have taken out the motorway in the opposite direction too, which suggests to them the driver wasn't in on the plot and most likely a random victim, but if this is the case, it's hard to explain how the timing worked out so favorably.

So many questions... Maybe we'll get a tell-all book some day that will clear things up?

bikerthai wrote:

Revelation wrote:

It's kind of like a family where the kids are in one room while mom and dad have a god-awful row in the next room, then the parents come out and say let's go out to a nice family dinner. No one feels like celebrating, yet they go through the motions anyway, wondering when the next fight will break out.

All will be forgiven when the kids win the home coming game.

It appears the Pentagon is hedging for the possibility that will not occur quickly:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/us/p ... ition.html

The Pentagon is racing to boost its production of artillery shells by 500 percent within two years

Revelation wrote:

art wrote:

If Russia has nothing to match western MBT's what can Russia do to defend hard won ground from counter offensive operations by UAF?

Not much. In theory they have a stronger air force, but they already show they suffer when they expose it. Defeating tanks means flying low which means exposure to MANPADs, and the Ukrainians have been given the world's best MANPADs in large quantities. Now Patriot is on the way which means even getting to the battlefield requires flying low. All the assets Ukraine has been given to fight drones work quite well against fighters, which is what most of them were designed to target.

I strongly advise we stop talking about western MBT's as if they are invulnerable. Ukraine won't simply be able to steam roll through the Russian lines with impunity. They need to operate these vehicles wisely. Their improved armor and fire control compared to what Ukraine currently fields will increase the UAF's effectiveness beyond what simple numbers suggest, but it won't outright reshape the entire battlefield.

I don't honestly know how reliable Russia's 125mm cannons will be at penetrating the frontal armor of Leopard 2A6's and Abrams, but they can definitely penetrate the side and rear armor. Similar concerns exist for Russian ATGM's. Plus, I presume the reason Germany implemented the 2A5/2A6 upgrades is they were concerned about the sufficiency of the 2A4's armor, which is roughly half of the Leopards committed so far. Less powerful weapons like BMP cannons and RPG's may also be a danger from the sides and rear, and at a minimum stand some chance of immobilizing them.

Advancing into Russian held territory means less air defense coverage, so increased potential for Russia to utilize it's Su-25, Su-34, Mi-28, and Ka-52's more effectively. While they have seen surprisingly little use so far, Russia does have air-launched anti-tank missiles capable of hitting moving vehicles from beyond ManPADS range and with large enough warheads they can almost certainly defeat western armor (ex: LMUR ostenisbly being guided to a Ukrainian tank). Minefields are an additional risk, and trenches and other barriers are intended to slow offensives, potentially giving more chances to achieve disabling hits. And even unguided artillery scores a luck hit from time-to-time.

Desert Storm made the Abrams look invulnerable, but the experience in Desert Storm was enabled by an incredibly well-planned operation by the coalition at the peak of its Cold War formation for large scale maneuver warfare, against an undertrained opponent (and inferior versions of the T-72 compared to what Russia fields today) that lost much of their high level C3I ability from the start due to coalition air superiority and the resulting rear area strikes. We weren't talking about battalions working together. We were talking about an entire army corps working effectively together and in coordination with the Air Force, Marines, Navy, and the British 1st armored division.

In Desert Storm, entire regiments were maneuvering with a level of coordination I'm not sure Ukraine has experience at even at the company level. The synchronization of preparatory bombardment by artillery, the close air support, the breaching of the berms and minefields by engineering, the advance by the mechanized units, and securing of the rear area and resupply of the advancing elements were all an incredible achievement by the coalition.

The period after the initial invasion in Iraq in 2003 stands in contrast. The US was once again highly effective in achieving a breakthrough at a scale well beyond what Ukraine has the numbers to achieve or the leisure to plan and prepare for, but then the nature of the war changed. It was no longer possible to set the terms of engagement by large scale, planned maneuvers. That's when Abrams started to be lost. Yes, a lot of those losses were due to IED's, but that is a threat analogous to mines. Some of them were due to close range ambushes, and that will also be a threat Ukraine will have to manage with effective infantry escorts and that drones will assist with.

I definitely believe the delivery of western tanks is an important contribution to Ukraine's success, but we can't be lulled into thinking they will make the war simple. Even if we give them 300+ like they are asking for, it will still be dangerous work recapturing their territory from Russia. In the meantime, Russia continues training troops from the first round of mobilization, and may conduct another round of mobilization, and they continue both building new tanks and refurbishing tanks in storage. Western support for Ukraine needs to stay ahead of those threats.

Revelation wrote:

And I acknowledge your predictions on where things would end up turned out to be correct.

Thanks.

Yet, overall, I feel Germany could have come out of all this looking like a leader, but instead looks like a reluctant partner who needs to be goaded into action.

Which wasn't really the case, the polish PiS just had to misuse the situation for its own domestic propaganda and too many people just jumped on it.

But also domestically many were exasperated by Scholz's clammed-up communication outage; Not that this was a new thing with him, just particularly unfortunate there.

Northern germans have a long history of dealing with the rough and often dangerous North Sea. Fishing, seafaring and flood defense have made them sober and understated especially in tough situations, and Scholz being from coastal Hamburg is not atypical to that. But a chancellor is supposed to have a competent communication staff which is a bit in question at this time. Even if you're hard at work behind the scenes you need to massage the public when public sentiment is adrift, and they have been a bit too economical on that.

It's gotta be frustrating for the average German. They end up making the sacrifices in the end, yet their government does so in a way that makes them look like they are only doing so under duress. They deserve a victory lap, but it just feels wrong to do so.

In Germany hardly anybody feels like celebrating, it is more a sober recognition of necessity in view of the brutal war that's heading up the news on most days, primarily out of compassion with the plight of the ukrainians. I hope we'll see happy celebrations in Ukraine not too far in the future, but even then the many victims will call for remembrance, too.

I guess this is the price to be paid for having Ruzzia-lovers prominently in the mix.

Those exist in Londongrad as in MAGA Washington as well (and in other places, of course), so we all have to deal with them up to a point; Just in Scholz's SPD it is more along principled Ostpolitik nostalgia than actual misguided Putinophilia, contrary to Die Linke and AfD whom nobody else respects or really takes much note of anyway on their respective outer fringes.

And I get it, politics are ugly everywhere. This is just more of that, ugly politics, played out on an international stage.

It just doesn't need to be that way. While I certainly request much better communication handling from my own chancellor (the other cabinet members were mostly fine, as were notable party figures) it would be good if all of us didn't offer Putin's side the satisfaction of chaotic divisions and recriminations between us whenever the going gets tough.

iamlucky13 wrote:

It appears the Pentagon is hedging for the possibility that will not occur quickly:

That and they are applying the lesson learned toward possible war with China.

iamlucky13 wrote:

Advancing into Russian held territory means less air defense coverage, so increased potential for Russia to utilize it's Su-25, Su-34, Mi-28, and Ka-52's more effectively.

That is why the less glamorous vehicles like the Gephard and Stinger Avengers are essential as part of the combined arm force. Those Bradley's will also have Stinger equipped infantry as well.

Revelation wrote:

I see it quite the opposite. IMO the linkage between the Abrams and the Leopard was a failure on the part of German Ruzzia-lovers who knew the US was against sending Abrams. They thought this would prevent the Leopards being approved, but in the real world what happened is that it made the US reconsider then reverse their decision on the Abrams. The end result was the exact opposite of what was intended, now both Abrams and Leopard are approved for use in Ukraine.

Nope. That is almost certainly not how it went.

Scholz had always pushed for maximum coordination among the allies and this particular step up in substantial support has a much heavier psychological impact on Russia by many allies joining together (almost) at the same time resulting in a much bigger change of the tactical situation than a drawn out drip, drip of uncoordinated deliveries with spotty infrastructure support would have.

30 M1 are substantial, and more Leopard 2 and probably more Challenger 2 will be forthcoming as well.

Ukraine has to deal with multiple fronts, even needing to deter another invasion attempt via Belarus, so different tank models but collected into decently consistent regional groups should still be quite useful overall without undue fragmentation.

It's clear to me all along that Sholz's plan was to not approve the Leopard. He put up as many obstacles as he could for as long as he could, but in the end he lost, his stance was no longer politically viable.

Nope. That would be highly inconsistent with both his statements and his decisions so far.

The last day or so represents a major reversal in fortunes for Ruzzia, IMO.

It's hard to see what if anything Ruzzia can do to counter such superior arms.

At least their halfway sane options are rapidly diminishing, and they've not been great before.

Time to rethink and to reconsider the whole campaign. No plausible avenues remain for Russia, really, except cutting their losses and going back home.

art wrote:

Just a thought: are there many road bridges in Ukraine able to take the weight of a main battle tank?

Contrary to bridges in western Europe (where the western MBTs had been intended for territorial defense) smaller ukrainian bridges may not be up to the same maximum loads, so they may need to be more careful crossing such bridges at lower speeds and more spaced out, I would imagine.

I just hope there will be efforts (im secrecy) to get an agreement with the right fractions inside russia. Maybe sending Tanks is the right move for that.

bikerthai wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

It appears the Pentagon is hedging for the possibility that will not occur quickly:

That and they are applying the lesson learned toward possible war with China.

iamlucky13 wrote:

Advancing into Russian held territory means less air defense coverage, so increased potential for Russia to utilize it's Su-25, Su-34, Mi-28, and Ka-52's more effectively.

That is why the less glamorous vehicles like the Gephard and Stinger Avengers are essential as part of the combined arm force. Those Bradley's will also have Stinger equipped infantry as well.

Those definitely help, but moving out ahead of your lines still means sticking your neck out, and the air threat is just one of the risk they will be facing.

My overall point is we simply can not afford to assume Ukraine's performance with western equipment will mirror the performance of the benefactor nations have demonstrated in more favorable conditions. Sending 3 battalions worth of tanks represents an incremental improvement for them.

On the other hand Ukrainians mastered the use of the PZH2000 and they will send battle hardened Crews to Training. The Marder and Leopard were designed for Conscripts. The "Gefecht der verbundenen Waffen philosophy" might be new but they will learn.

Something also tells me they already train.

What is open is the question on the 100plus Leopard 1A5. They have an outdated 105mm gun but are still capable platforms.

TheSonntag wrote:

What is open is the question on the 100plus Leopard 1A5. They have an outdated 105mm gun but are still capable platforms.

Lots of 105mm ammunition around and the USA is getting ready to continue production for its new light tank that is not a tank.

iamlucky13 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

art wrote:

If Russia has nothing to match western MBT's what can Russia do to defend hard won ground from counter offensive operations by UAF?

Not much. In theory they have a stronger air force, but they already show they suffer when they expose it. Defeating tanks means flying low which means exposure to MANPADs, and the Ukrainians have been given the world's best MANPADs in large quantities. Now Patriot is on the way which means even getting to the battlefield requires flying low. All the assets Ukraine has been given to fight drones work quite well against fighters, which is what most of them were designed to target.

I strongly advise we stop talking about western MBT's as if they are invulnerable. Ukraine won't simply be able to steam roll through the Russian lines with impunity. They need to operate these vehicles wisely. Their improved armor and fire control compared to what Ukraine currently fields will increase the UAF's effectiveness beyond what simple numbers suggest, but it won't outright reshape the entire battlefield.

I do not imagine that western MBT's are invulnerable but it seems they are more or less indispensable to Ukraine being able to punch through Russian lines. If only Ukraine's early request for them had been answered positively, I assume that Ukraine would have recovered far more of its territory before the winter weather set in. But we are where we are: weather-induced stasis which I assume means that Russia can build defences far stronger than when the war was more mobile. Assuming that there is a UAF spring offensive, I guess that it will not take place before the Ukrainian tankers and support system have attained a minimum acceptable level of competence.

I remember reading that when the ground froze really solid, the UAF would get on the move again. What happened to that?

TheSonntag wrote:

On the other hand Ukrainians mastered the use of the PZH2000 and they will send battle hardened Crews to Training. The Marder and Leopard were designed for Conscripts. The "Gefecht der verbundenen Waffen philosophy" might be new but they will learn.

Something also tells me they already train.

What is open is the question on the 100plus Leopard 1A5. They have an outdated 105mm gun but are still capable platforms.

It's not just about training the crews of the tanks.

It's about training of the other supporting assets around the tank.

When you step up to more advanced systems things get more complicated, in order to maximize what the asset can do and not expose it to scenarios that negate its advantages and make it a liability.

These weapons can be deadly to the user and to those around them if they do not know how to effectively and confidently employ them. You can't drop technologically advanced equipment onto the battlefield expecting soldiers who do not know it will be able to use it, maintain it, or integrate it into a combined arms team. Providing tanks is a whole different ball game compared to delivering and training individual soldiers on Javelin & Stingers, and crews on MRAPS, Humvee's, HIMARS & Bradleys.

It's not just "activate Leopard/Abrams" and then +50% effectiveness! It's not a video game upgrade.

It's not just about training the operators of said tank/aircraft/etc. It's also training of command level too. It must be employed in specific ways based on the scenario to obtain desired effects, and to maximize the capabilities of a platform, while minimizing its vulnerabilities. So training goes up the command structure too. Can't just drop it into combat and say "Go take this area, good luck!"

You also need to train the other supporting assets around the platform as well, from the scouts, infantry, artillery, air defence, combat engineers, and intelligence assets. They all need to work together and understand each other's capabilities and vulnerabilities to be truly effective on the battlefield. Each part of a combined arms team has a role to play, they all must understand each other's advantages and limitations, and they all must sing from the same sheet of music, so to speak.

You hear a lot of smart folks talking about how critical combined arms and maneuver warfare is here; LISTEN TO THEM. They are not just spewing out buzz words from some overdone MBA Powerpoint presentation.

art wrote:

I do not imagine that western MBT's are invulnerable but it seems they are more or less indispensable to Ukraine being able to punch through Russian lines.

They are not invincible, but they give the crew a much higher chance to survive when hit. Even if the tank is disabled, the crew can live to fight another day.

iamlucky13 wrote:

Ukraine's performance with western equipment will mirror the performance of the benefactor nations have demonstrated in more favorable conditions.

The Ukrainians will be trained to use combined arms tactic. They will also bring their own battle tested experience.

I saw a video of a Ukrainian comander managing a tank engagement not from inside a tank but in front of a terminal looking at drone footage and directing the maneuver of the tanks under his command.

This kind of experience is priceless no matter what kind of tanks he has.

bt

victrola wrote:

Why is Ukraine struggling to hold the Bakhmut area? If they can't hang on there, what are going to do when the Russians unleash the offensive they are preparing? Could it be that Ukraine is running out of steam? Or is Ukraine's strategy in the Bakhmut area to apply just enough force to hold on and let the Russians exhaust themselves with staggering casualties? Does anyone have an idea of the casualty ratios in this battle?

Russians are attempting to replay, around Bakhmut, Western Front of WWI, something along the lines of Verdun. They are ready to throw unlimited number of bodies into the grinder.

Do you want us to oblige, and reciprocate? That would be just dumb, they have more bodies, and they don't seem to care.

We do care. One of the euphemisms for this war is "Russia's soldier has, on average, two stints in prison. Ukraine's soldier has, on average, two academic degrees". So yeah, we will have to accept that some of Russia's offensives cannot be contained in a head-on confrontation, bayonet to bayonet. That's why work has to be done, so a ruskie is dead BEFORE he reaches the front lines. And even if he somehow makes it there, he has to be already malnourished, sick, frostbitten, has no arms nor ammo, no comms nor body armour, no effective command, and a wish to surrender at the earliest opportunity.

That's why every dollar russia has, and that wasn't taken away -- kills. That's why, in russia, every detonation in barracks, every burning food depot, every mobik train crash, every airplane crash, every batch of unworking medicine, every batch of rotting food is a way to shorten this war, and make sure less humans are hurt.

art wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Not much. In theory they have a stronger air force, but they already show they suffer when they expose it. Defeating tanks means flying low which means exposure to MANPADs, and the Ukrainians have been given the world's best MANPADs in large quantities. Now Patriot is on the way which means even getting to the battlefield requires flying low. All the assets Ukraine has been given to fight drones work quite well against fighters, which is what most of them were designed to target.

I strongly advise we stop talking about western MBT's as if they are invulnerable. Ukraine won't simply be able to steam roll through the Russian lines with impunity. They need to operate these vehicles wisely. Their improved armor and fire control compared to what Ukraine currently fields will increase the UAF's effectiveness beyond what simple numbers suggest, but it won't outright reshape the entire battlefield.

I do not imagine that western MBT's are invulnerable but it seems they are more or less indispensable to Ukraine being able to punch through Russian lines. If only Ukraine's early request for them had been answered positively, I assume that Ukraine would have recovered far more of its territory before the winter weather set in. But we are where we are: weather-induced stasis which I assume means that Russia can build defences far stronger than when the war was more mobile. Assuming that there is a UAF spring offensive, I guess that it will not take place before the Ukrainian tankers and support system have attained a minimum acceptable level of competence.

I remember reading that when the ground froze really solid, the UAF would get on the move again. What happened to that?

Right. Not invulnerable, but effectively indispensable, given Russia's greater ability to replace their losses on their own. Quantity and quality both matter to Ukraine.

A side frustration of mine is it seems like most of the west spent the first 6+ months of the war looking at pictures from February of lines of Russian tanks lining the roads to Kyiv, destroyed by artillery and ATGM's because of the way their original offensive plans fell apart, without the initiative even ensure they were properly fueled after the first 3 days, and dispersed and camoflauged when they weren't on the move.

From those pictures, a narrative set in that tanks were obsolete, and dispensing with that sense was an element of building up public support for giving Ukraine tanks, although perhaps secondary to overcoming the fear that Russia would rather commit suicide by radical escalation than lose the war.

The militaries already recognized the real roots of Russia's early losses, and instead have been focusing for much of the time making sure the message was understood that whatever we give Ukraine requires significantly more support than just transporting the equipment to the border. The politicians, on the other hand, were not seeing pressure from the public to send armor to Ukraine.

Regarding offensive operations:

There was strong hope that once the ground froze, Ukraine would be able to launch a major offensive, but never anything confirmed. It is hard to say if they are still watching and waiting for the ideal time, possibly not until spring, or if Russia's massive infusion of 100,000 to 150,000 additional troops, even if untrained, was enough to fully engage Ukraine's military, leaving them with insufficient numbers to keep in reserve to prepare for an offensive.

Whichever is the case, Ukraine is not going to confirm. We just have to wait and see what happens next.

iamlucky13 wrote:

A side frustration of mine is it seems like most of the west spent the first 6+ months of the war looking at pictures from February of lines of Russian tanks lining the roads to Kyiv, destroyed by artillery and ATGM's because of the way their original offensive plans fell apart, without the initiative even ensure they were properly fueled after the first 3 days, and dispersed and camoflauged when they weren't on the move.

A flip side observation from looking at the same scene could be that if Russia had properly executed their combined arms operation Ukraine may have lost their capital and this "Special Operation" could look much different, perhaps some in the west were still questioning the ability of Ukraine to resist in the first 6 months.

Ukraine will now push for F-16 fighter jets, government adviser says

https://thehill.com/homenews/3830293-uk ... iser-says/

There is a good article here by General Mick Ryan (retired) of the Australian Army considering Russia's probable strategies for 2023 broken down into 7 components: informational, command and leadership, military, diplomatic, national mobilisation, economic and adaptation.

https://mickryan.substack.com/p/thinkin ... nd-russian

A few excerpts from aspects of the military and mobilization components:

The deployment of tens of thousands of mobilised soldiers, as well as the recruitment of thousands of convicts to serve in the Wagner Group, has stabilised the Russian position in Ukraine over the winter. This has also begun to address one of Russia’s fundamental shortfalls at the start of its invasion – a shortage of troops, especially infantry. As Owen Matthews writes in his book, Overreach, about the initial invasion force:

"The estimated 120 BTGs that attacked Ukraine all went in with their full complement of armour and support arms, but far from their full combat strength of men...With no dismountable men you’ve got a motorised infantry unit that doesn’t have infantry.
....
While at times chaotic, Russian mobilisation gradually assumed some semblance of organization and has apparently continued throughout the war to induct and provide very rudimentary training to tens of thousands of Russians to serve in Ukraine. At least half of those mobilised have been deployed to Ukraine already.

One of my biggest concerns about the current situation is that I read the last sentence I quoted as, "As many as half of those mobilized remain available to deploy to Ukraine with additional training."

iamlucky13 wrote:

There was strong hope that once the ground froze, Ukraine would be able to launch a major offensive

Looking at the weather report for Ukraine, I see the temp is hovering around freezing. Doesn't look like they are getting the deep freeze to make the ground solid.

Good for the civilians. Not so good for any major ofensive.

Seeing some of the videos from Ukraine showing vehicles sloshing in water and mud.

bt

Politico article with some inside on the political process of the last weeks:

Inside Washington’s about-face on sending tanks to Ukraine
Weeks of squabbling opened a rare breach between two of Ukraine's top allies. Then the president decided to make peace.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/2 ... e-00079560

Many anonymous inside sources cited, some contradicting each other.

Best regards and hoping the tanks will help Ukraine,
Jonas

Who exactly is meant to be the other "top" ally?

L410Turbolet wrote:

Who exactly is meant to be the other "top" ally?

From the politico link above:

'As language got heated behind the scenes, neither the U.S. nor Germany would budge — even as the standoff exposed a rare breach between two of Kyiv’s biggest backers'