• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Ukraine - Superthread

The sad thing is Russia invaded Ukraine 11 months ago. From that date everyone in NATO has realized that our forces need to be brought to high readiness to face any potential escalation. What has been done with that 11 months to get as many tanks as possible ready for potential combat in case things go pear shaped? Is a full scale Russian invasion of a European nation and threats of nuclear escalation against NATO not enough to have us do everything possible to get our forces on a war footing? If not, then what the hell must it take?
Has there been a single announcement about replenishing a single item that we've already donated to Ukraine - a single item, can anyone name an item? It's close 1yr since this started and since we started donating - not including all the other items we've donated since 2014.
Has there been a single announcement about replenishing a single item that we've already donated to Ukraine - a single item, can anyone name an item? It's close 1yr since this started and since we started donating - not including all the other items we've donated since 2014.
Of high end systems nothing tangible (other than the ACSV aspect that @Spencer100 mentioned) that has been reported on but replenishment of most consumables items is already done through existing procurement cycles and generally aren't sexy enough to be on anyone's radar other than the relevant team that manages that materiel. We are always procuring things like ammo, rations etc. Granted ammo and even rations have a long lead time but I suspect that our recent donations are likely adjusting procurement targets where possible for our procurement cycles.

Much of other materiel we donated was stuff that was already replaced and in essence sitting at the depots or bases for trg or other purposes. While we are a resource constrained military, other than losing some key low density high end systems (M777, Leo A4) most of donations IMHO have a negligible impact in the short term.
Has there been a single announcement about replenishing a single item that we've already donated to Ukraine - a single item, can anyone name an item? It's close 1yr since this started and since we started donating - not including all the other items we've donated since 2014.
The only one I saw is the 38 ACSV (LAV-6's) donated off the line are to be replaced as the line is "hot" at GDLS-Canada. And guess they are calling it the Super Bison or Bison 2.

I can't post the article I saw it in here
The Big Cod sends...

Canada probably could provide 50 tanks to Ukraine: retired general​

"Many of the tanks are in poor condition, but we can make sure they are operational, ready to go for the Ukrainians," retired Canadian general Rick Hillier told Power & Politics Wednesday. "It would cost us some effort, certainly, but I'd like to see it happen."

For the love of God, given the state of tanks in Canada, if we give 14, we better have a plan to replace them, either dump the whole fleet and get 2 Regiments of M1s or buy additional Leopard 2s
Ben Hodges at odds with Colin Kahl

Hodges calling for more, faster - ignore Vlad's redlines and western nerves and get on with delivering what the Ukrainians want. They know what they are doing and have been doing it well. Send ATACMS, GLSDBs and Gray Eagles to get in Crimea and cut it off.

Without Crimea, Ukraine will never win​

There is no victory for Kyiv – or Nato – unless we give the Ukrainians the tools to seize back the peninsula
BEN HODGES26 January 2023 • 7:32pm

The Ukrainian General Staff have set an amazing example for military planners in Europe. Their activities are methodical, professional and disciplined. Their understanding of operational design on the battlefield, and operational security, has never been matched by the Russians. So we can safely conclude that, with the right weapons, Ukraine can prevent a major Russian breakthrough just about anywhere on the battlefield. But more than that, Ukraine can retake Crimea this year.
Currently, Kyiv appears to be building up an armoured force, division-size or larger, that is prepared to serve as the breakthrough formation for the next major offensive phase of the campaign. I’d anticipate it will be at least two months, more likely three, before they are able to do that. It will be built mostly around Ukrainian armour that they already possess or which they have captured.
Of course, Western tanks will provide an added lethal edge, even if the numbers promised are well below what was requested. But Zelensky has now moved his attention to long-range precision missiles, which he knows will be decisive in the effort to liberate Crimea. They can be used to isolate the peninsula, allowing his forces to then attack exposed Russian facilities.
This is where Western strategy meets its biggest problem, since we haven’t yet decided whether to support Zelensky’s policy on Crimea in the first place. The answer should be obvious, because without retaking Crimea it is virtually impossible for Ukraine to win this war. For as long as Putin has a foothold in Ukrainian territory he will always be able to manipulate Ukraine’s society and economy. Put simply, do we want Ukraine to win or not?
Regrettably, Pentagon officials, such as Colin Kahl, the undersecretary of defence for policy, seem conflicted. They ought to be reminded that Ukraine has already shown its ability to isolate Crimea in a disciplined fashion.
For instance, the best known Russian landline of communication (LOC) in Crimea, which goes over the Kerch Bridge, was severely damaged months ago and won’t be fully repaired before the spring. I expect the Ukrainians will attempt to ensure it is never fully repaired. And the other major land LOC – the so-called “land bridge” between Crimea and Rostov – is also being targeted by Ukrainian forces.
These are the only two land LOCs which connect Crimea to Russia. Both are demonstrably vulnerable. Ukraine can easily destroy them in weeks, but only if we send our most sophisticated long-range missiles.
We can easily supply an Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), for example, which would vastly improve the ability of Ukrainian forces to strike the Russian land bridge, hitting river crossings, logistics hubs, rail connections, headquarters, troop concentrations and ammunition storage sites. Such missiles can be supplemented by Gray Eagle armed drones and ground-launched Small Diameter Bombs (SDB).
Then there is the ability to strike vulnerable targets on the Crimean peninsula, including the Russian navy base at Sevastopol, the major logistics hub at Dzhankoy and the airbase at Saky. And, of course, the same missiles will guarantee that Russia can never rebuild Kerch Bridge.

But Colin Kahl has said that sending the ATACMS is a “juice [that] isn’t really worth the squeeze”. This is the same pessimistic approach that delayed the sending of other key equipment, such as Patriot systems, several months ago. It is also the approach originally taken to sending Abrams tanks, which was thankfully reversed yesterday. Time and again, the pessimism of the Pentagon has been mistaken, and yet it continues.
If we really cannot send the long-range missiles Zelensky needs, we make an awful statement of intent: that we do not believe Crimea is up for the taking. And that, I fear, would render all Western support redundant. In the aftermath of 2014, the West stated that Crimea is Ukrainian but failed to do enough to prevent a full-scale Putin invasion. We have a duty now to put it right because, for all the nice rhetoric from Western leaders, there is no victory for Kyiv – or Nato – without the liberation of Crimea.

Lieutenant General (Retired) Ben Hodges is the former commander of US Army Europe

And who is Colin Kahl when he's at home?

Meanwhile - now that the Ukrainians have smorgasbord of tanks which ones are preferred?

Abrams tanks or German-made Leopards? Ukraine has one clear winner​

The different fuel requirements and training needed for the armoured vehicles means Kyiv will likely prefer one battle-ready option

ByDominic Nicholls, ASSOCIATE EDITOR (DEFENCE)26 January 2023 • 4:30pm

US M1 Abrams firing rockets

The US M1 Abrams are designed for 'maximum performance', but may also present logistical issues for Ukrainian forces CREDIT: Valda Kalnina/Shutterstock
American Abrams tanks, finally donated by Joe Biden to Ukraine, may be the most advanced of a new wave of armoured vehicles heading to the battlefield.
But they are hardly the tank of choice.
Maintenance challenges coming from its jet-like turbine engine create major logistical challenges when compared with the mass produced German-made Leopards also on their way to Kyiv.
“It guzzles fuel and the engine is difficult to repair and maintain,” said Jack Watling, a senior research fellow for land warfare at the Royal United Services Institute.
Given that other nations have offered tanks – mostly former Soviet variants, but also a squadron of British Challenger IIs – he also warned that “too many different types [of tank] would be really unhelpful”.

In the hands of a trained crew, backed up by a robust logistics and maintenance chain, the Abrams’ complexity is balanced by it being one of the most capable tanks in the world.
However, whereas the M1 Abrams “seeks maximum performance”, Mr Watling said, the Leopard II is designed to be used by conscripts - making the German vehicle easier to get to grips with.
Mark Hertling, a retired US army general who commanded the 1st Armored Division in Iraq during the troop surge of 2007 to 2008, said on Twitter:

Having fired T-72s, British Chieftains and Challengers, the German Leopard II and the US M1 Abrams, Gen Hertling said the American tank “requires the most turret training”.
The same is true for the combined multi-fuel turbine engine and transmission system, he said, which “blows when drivers aren’t trained” at a cost of around $1.5 million (£1.2 million) each.
“Reducing the burden must be a key consideration,” said Gen Hertling.

“In my professional opinion, the Abrams would cause more of a burden due to training and resupply to a force that’s in a tough fight.
tmg.video.placeholder.alt aBXAeS7JPws

“In my view, Leopard IIs would mean less of a burden.
The widespread availability of German-built Leopard II tanks is the main reason they are in such demand, as Kyiv looks to build an armoured formation to punch through Russian lines.
In service with 14 other nations, the availability of spares and other critical logistic components means that they are hugely attractive to Ukraine.

Mr Watling has reservations over whether Abrams are “the right tank” to send to Ukraine.
“No,” he said. “It’s not that [the US] couldn’t send it, but it would not be the desired outcome.”
The new government is going to be announcing cuts very soon in Australia.
Australia’s more mature than we are in their politics of national defense, and they have China on their doorstep. Hopefully they don’t make any dumb choices about cutting army modernization.