Send in the TANKS!!!
(archive.ph)
Comments (24)
sorted by:
That's all they have, by the way. It's a shitty cold war refit no less, and not fit for modern combat, but that's all of Germany's tank force. They're effectively declaring war.
Umm no, Leopard 2s first entered service in 1979, the Abrams in 1980. They're not old tanks, they're still in the latest generation of tanks. They just get periodic upgrades.
Leopard 2 is better than literally everything Russia has, and Russian tank designs have been exposed as being particularly shitty and not fit for modern combat. Russia has lost so many of them, it's stopped using them out of fear of running out. Notice how you never hear about Russian tanks being used around Bakhmut? That's why. They're afraid to lose them.
The 2A6 is the main front line version used in the German military. It's not an older reserve unit. Meanwhile Russia is digging tanks from the 1960s out of storage.
Literally wat.
1979 is exactly a cold war relic. And unless you're about to try and tell me that the Germans are sending along modern reactive armor tech that I know they don't have, then one metal box doesn't make much difference next to another.
Germany doesn't HAVE a front line anything, much less a tank doctrine. The Bundeswehr is a jobs program for smokers. They're lucky if they show up to NATO exercises with their own MREs for God's sakes, in every instance in which I've ever seen them they performed only marginally less worse than the goddamn Afghanis, and those guys were so bad you might as well hand out rifles to a platoon of labradors. If all 14 of those P2s have working engines, I'll be surprised.
Why do I feel like it's a hollow gesture, like the infrastructure, supply and training required to operate them fully isn't there and they'll just be nothing more than something to hide behind for cover?
It's not hollow, it will just take some time before they can actually be used. Obviously they aren't heading straight to the front lines. It will be months before they can be used.
Wouldn't full deployment of Russian reserves be ready by then and this is a Ukraine in a worse position thanks to infrastructure being taken out along with key officials dead.
Just getting through winter with power cuts is probably going to exhaust their home front by the time these get into action, if it makes a difference, it'll be dragged out than this imaginary 'Russia pushed out to their border' that the media keep trying to display.
I mean, if we are sending old model M1A1's, there probably isnt much in the way of vital components that are classified anymore. Even stuff that would have been hush-hush in the past (like the gun sights and ballistic computer) are probably obsolete enough to M1A2v4's (and even those might be getting replaced by the AbramsX here in the near future, unless the Army changes their mind on it).
fuck ukraine
Here is my read on the equipment being sent, just going off of what I have seen of how Ukraine is fighting, Russia is fighting (TLDR: reports of their good shit like T-90's is few and far between, T-90's have underwhelmed when they did show up, most fighting being done with old T-80's and T-72s that will be eaten alive by most of the gear being sent), and the actual gear at each step:
Germany+Poland and several other NATO nations, Leopard 2, models A4-A6: On paper, these are entirely capable tanks that will get the job done just fine. In practice, Germany was so hesitant to send them because they have had difficulty replacing losses and even maintaining the ones that exist. Because the dirty little secret the German arms industry is not what it once was, and the parts that work well arent German anymore (for instance, H&K is mostly based out of Georgia, USA these days). So they were afraid that once people started sending their Leopards, they would get backfilled by American Abrams and their market share would never recover. The tanks themselves are fine though, and I foresee the Poles putting in great effort to help with them purely on the usual Polish basis of "Fuck Russia."
United Kingdom, Challenger 2: Probably the best option of the traditional tanks being sent their way. It is fairly straightforward maintenance-wise as well as being tough bastards, and their main weakness in NATO formations (not being compatible with all NATO ammo due to the rifled gun) is not exactly an issue for the Ukrainians.
United States, M1 Abrams+M2 Bradley: The Abrams is absolutely a capable tank, and the fuel issues are generally overhyped compared to its actual consumption. The main downside is maintenance, because while an Abrams is generally one of the more reliable tanks out there (as is usual with turbines), it is the most maintenance intensive when it does suffer a breakdown, usually with the entire powerpack having to be removed.
However, the M2 is probably one of the best vehicles the Ukrainians could have asked for for how they have been fighting the war. It will allow them to give a good force multiplier to their infantry (which has proven superior to Russian infantry thus far in the war. It has also had a battle-earned reputation of punching far above its weight, and is can also excel in a heavy scout/heavy cavalry role, which has been the bread and butter of Ukrainian tactics in the war thus far. If its not the best vehicle for their needs being sent, it is second best only to...
France, AMX-10RC: The French were getting clowned on on the military memes boards for deciding this would be the tank they would be sending. But you know what? With how Ukraine has been fighting, this is probably their best option. Ukrainian tanks have largely been characterized by being opportunity hunters not getting directly involved in the, but Ukrainian light vehicle forces have been characterized by being possessed by the cavalry spirit. Wherein they somehow obtained IRL plot armor, and proceed to do utterly retarded bullshit like charge across open fields directly into enemy fire, and somehow not die. So now you want to give them a vehicle that has similar offroad speeds to a Humvee, AND has armor plate that can stand up to medium-caliber autocannons, AND has a 105mm gun? I can foresee them doing some goofy shit with this thing.
In a way this is a good thing. Countries actually arming and training themselves for war means less NATO control.
I have been arguing exactly that for a while now, and everyone says I am a terrible person for it or something.
I have said for a while, the US should be going to these nations and peoples and telling them "We cant fight every war, and we cant be everywhere, and we cant give you something you must earn. We can open the arsenal, give you access to the means you need. But you must fight for your own freedom."
Seems Ukraine is proving that strategy can work just fine.
It's one of those weird things. During Trump's presidency, this was seen as terrible, now they're doing it during a war.
I mean, it will probably even work even if Ukraine falls in the end. American weapon systems allowed a nation that everyone thought had maybe 2 weeks tops to survive to make it almost a year and still have a conceivable shot of not just surviving, but maybe even winning. It is absolutely no coincidence that now American arms makers are making out their capacity fulfilling orders for nations around the world. And while I [obviously] have severe issues with Biden as a president, he is at least allowing Taiwan to get in some of that action, and they are buying up modern SAM's and Anti-Ship missiles, which I can guarantee you has China sweating nervously (naval landings are already one of the hardest military operations to do, and now their equipment has been shown as a joke thanks to Russia while Taiwan is arming up with army/navy killing American gear).
All we had to do was spend what is effectively pocket-change and allow are industry to do what it was already going to do, and we have utterly destroyed one of our greatest geopolitical rivals. We would be fools to ever set boots on the ground again unless it was in defense of ourselves or a direct ally.
I hadnt heard about this, so I have to ask: Do we know what sort of condition they were in? Because if the Ukrainian forces were mauled, it could indeed be "Had to pull back to sheer quantity of Russians." But if they were still combat effective, it could just be to shorten up supply lines to deal with said Russian horde. After all, from what I have seen the Russians are still suffering extreme losses and attrition around Bakhmut (with some areas being so blasted to hell you could credible get them confused with a WW1 no-mans land photo if you made it black and white), and that is supposed to be the main thrust of the Russian efforts.
Personally, I would give it more 65%-70% the mobilization fails. You cite WW2 as an example of it working, and it did. But you (and a huge amount of people both in the West and in Russia) forget that in WW2, Russia greatly benefitted from American Lend-Lease, especially in.....logistics ("Soviet troops entered Berlin in the back of American trucks, marching on American boots, and riding American trains."- Gregory Zhukov, 1945). Which is rather apropos of modern day woes the Russian army is suffering from. And while it is entirely possible Russia still has some gear left in the tank, the last round of mobilization was met with soldiers being given rusty AK's and them digging T-62's out of deep storage because they were running out of T-72's.
(I will probably make this my last word on the subject if you want to have one last response, but I think there is not a lot extra to talk about on the topic. I did enjoy it though)
Kind of? I will admit that I do listen to him, and I think it is worth it because he did call a lot of stuff long before it happened, so he at least has an idea. But I dont take his word as gospel, because he has also had moments being wrong, as well as moments of being wildly wrong.
It is more that I listen to him, and if it doesnt have actual data to back up what he is saying (generally anything outside of economics), then I go looking for new info based on what he said rather than just taking him at his word. Since we are on the note, my other big Geopolitical sources are George Freidman and Chris Chappell (China Uncensored/America Uncovered), as well as minor sources.
Good to know. Admittedly, while I considered Bakhmut as something Ukraine could win, but once it turned into an artillery slog, that is something the Russians have at least been somewhat successful at.
My main point though was that it doesnt matter if Russia has 10 million soldiers if they cant get into the fight at a rate faster than Ukraine can kill them. You are right, the core Ukrainian forces are effectively "Babies First NATO-army" with the territorials being slightly better armed militamen (with all of the positives and negatives that implies), but if Russian logistics are so bad their soldiers cant get to the fight, or are combat ineffective when they do, it doesnt matter.
That is honestly one of the biggest differences between Russia 1917 and Russia 1945. Both had severe logistical issues in their wars. The Soviets early in Barbarossa were losing to the Germans, even while outnumbering them, due to said supply issues. Then when they entered Lend Lease, and the Americans started throwing trucks and trains at them, it allowed the Soviets to start actually moving their men and their gear, and is pretty much the only reason Deep Battle as a doctrine worked (and Zhukov admitted as much frequently, to the annoyance of Stalin).
Now Russia wants to do Deep Battle, but they have been snorting their own supply of "We Won the Great Patriotic War with no help!" for so long, they forgot about their own logistic issues that were never really solved in the time since the 1950's. This is also before we get to the fact that this is not the Russia of the Soviet era, and their population is probably not up for a continued, protracted war. The mass fleeing in the face of the last round of [partial] mobilization proves that, and I dont see how a second round will change that. In fact, it may make it worse.
To be fair, I still foresee them being a major threat, especially as long as they have their nuclear stockpile. My point was that I just think this war has well and truly place Russia below China on the "Threats to America" list, and barring something coming out of left field, I dont see that changing.
I do recommend him, but yes he is very China-centric for his main area of expertise. His producer is a Chinese expat who had been a dissident before she left, and he has a ton of contacts inside China so he has a tendency to get some info that usually slips by or doesnt come out (even if he can also get a little clickbaity sometimes).
I know I said the other post was the last word, but I figured I would answer the question.
Invest in Rheinmetall if you have no morals, you'll make good money if this becomes a regular thing.
It's not going to become a regular thing. They have no manufacturing capacity, they're capable of completing about 3-4 tanks per YEAR, and there's absolutely no way they're going to increase that within the next few years - there are no resources, no factories, no trained workers, and environmental regulations in effect are designed to destroy heavy industry. European countries are giving up whatever's left of their "armies" and they'll be buying mostly American replacements - so I'd be buying Lockheed-Martin and General Dynamics if anything.
Good to know. Never been a military stock investor, so I didn't know any of that.