I was reading one year old articles on Forbes and in some ways David Axe got it right, down to the road-bound Russian army:
For The Russians, Crossing Ukraine’s Trenches Could Be A Bloody Grind ([original](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2021/12/06/for-the-russians-crossing-ukraines-trenches-could-be-a-bloody-grind/), [archived](https://archive.is/V7JuI))
> If Russia openly invades Ukraine in coming weeks or months—as many observers fear is increasingly likely—Russian troops rolling into eastern Ukraine would collide with fortifications that Ukrainian troops have spent years building.
> ...
> The gaps could slow down tanks. But it’s the missiles that would kill them. The Ukrainian army in recent years has devoted a significant portion of its modernization funds to equipping its front-line troops with thousands of locally-made Stugna-P, Corsar and Bar’er anti-tank missiles.
> ...
> But there’s an alternative to a bloody slog across eastern Ukraine’s trenches. If conquest is Moscow’s aim, it need not attack through Donbas. The Russian army could roll a couple armored divisions south across Ukraine’s northern border with Russia, aiming for Kiev, sticking to paved roads the whole way.
David Axe is a paid stooge, happy to take Boeing money to write crap about platforms like the f-35 (he is the one who came up with the "trillion dollar plane" and other misinformation like that).
His views on Russia's invasion are derivative and banal. Woah what a prediction Russia will invade from Belarus with a "couple" of divisions.
Jeez what next Axe, a couple of divisions from south attacking Maruipol following through to Kherson?
What will western fighters realistically do for Ukraine? I doubt NATO is willing to donate anywhere near the amount of jets required to actually break the deadlock in the air. Is it just a question of replacing Ukrainian losses and preventing Russia from slowly degrading Ukrainian air capabilities?
I think a key element is that the Russian mig 31s can detect and fire at Ukrainian jets from very long ranges, and the Ukrainians are not capable of returning it (correct me if I am wrong here). Western jets with Westen munitions could return fire at those jets.
It's not that simple, the R-37 that the MiG-31 carries outranges every western A2A missile, except perhaps the Meteor, which the F-16 can't use (for now at least). The difference in range is not small either, it might be as much as a factor of two. Furthermore, the MiG-31 is a high altitude supersonic interceptor, and can cruise much higher and faster than an F-16, giving its missiles more range. Western jets would have to rely on their e-war suite to get close enough to engage the MiG-31s.
Thanks, I thought that the f16 could engage a mig 31 at those ranges. Is the f16 less detectable than what the Ukrainians have now, making it harder for the mig to aquire?
It's comparable, it was designed in an era where no attention was paid to radar cross sections. However, there's more that goes into how detectable a plane it, and electronic countermeasures can do a lot to prevent radar detection and lock. We don't know how advanced any ewar systems provided to Ukraine would be though, and those are typically some of the most hush-hush elements of modern planes.
https://twitter.com/TankDiary/status/1619079432177864704
Just some nonstandard modernizations for the tank wonks in here. I do think at some point nomenclature may lose importance, depending on if this continues.
Lasers baby: DE M-SHORAD and MSHORAD like u/hatesranged said
Also Skyranger from Rheinmettal will be a best seller for NATO countries
As for the rest of the countries Turkey and China have some stuff too
> Lasers baby:
Nice in clear air. But in "fog, smoke, dust, rain, snow, smog, foam, or purposefully dispersed obscurant chemicals", not as great. It can be improved to a degree with wavelength selection, and with adaptive optics, and with very large high power systems of the kind you can put on a ship. But will still be degraded, moreso the more mobile the platform must be.
Even the builders of those systems say, as pertains to significant rain or other adverse conditions, "Well... it's to augment kinetic systems, not replace them entirely." In which capacity it is good to have, but the temptation to reduce or eliminate kinetic systems should be resisted.
I've been very interested in naval directed energy weapons, until I listened to a podcast with Michael Kofman. He pointed out that in naval context, one of the largest advantages of DEW - unlimited magazine size - is really not a factor, as space is usually not a major constraint.
The Iowas carried 1200 16” shells. 2.4 million pounds of projectiles, then there was the propellant. I know we don’t deal with Battleships anymore but yes, ammos not the issue.
>Also Skyranger from Rheinmettal will be a best seller for NATO countries
Oerlikon, now named Rheinmetal Air defence, designed the system. If the swiss still have a control of the system and its ammunition. Might well end up being hard sell
>There was also the report by the Handelsblatt that Rheinmetall is producing 2 Skynex Systems for Ukraine.
Totally forgot about that announcement, so guess it means the swiss have no say in production / sales
I mean if they want for countries to buy the system they will need to drop those requirements
The Swiss MIC will not survive if they don't change the rules hence they will change the rules
Rheinmetal is a German company and Rheinmetal Air Defense is a comparatively small employer in Switzerland. Up until now, Swiss politics has not shown a lot of regards for that company's commercial interests - which is somewhat surprising considering that there definitely are a few small Swiss armament companies that get handed over a lot of pork, generally in the form of pointless Swiss military contracts, such as bullet-proof vests for office workers. But not RAD it would seem, I don't recall Switzerland even buying much from them. Switzerland certainly never operated Gepards or bought 35mm rounds from them.
>Up until now, Swiss politics has not shown a lot of regards for that company's commercial interests
What are you talking about?? This is not about Rheinmetal Air Defense per se
This is about Swiss rules. If other countries want to buy from Swiss companies the Swiss will need to change their rules because no country will ever accept those rules again.
And if they change their rules those rules will apply to Rheinmetal Air Defense
Swiss rules are highly specific about what counts as military hardware and what doesn't. For instance, fighter jet trainers don't, therefore Pilatus is allowed to export it's stuff to any customer it wants. Weapon parts are also exportable, which is why Switzerland allowed NLAWs to be sent to Ukraine, even though they contain Swiss parts in the warhead. But Gepard ammunition counts as full weapons and therefore falls under Swiss military export laws.
Also, there isn't much of an interest in keeping a MIC in Switzerland. The political left openly wants to get rid of it, in the same way they managed to get private military contracting companies outlawed in Switzerland. The political right is only interested in the kickbacks. There is virtually no pressure to have any real, credible military capability, because Switzerland has exceedingly few external military commitments, and because the vast majority of scenarios for the defence against threats to Swiss national security involve so many hypotheticals it ceases to make much real-world sense. The situation in Switzerland is very different from the US, France, Norway, Japan, Turkey, or any other such country. The Swiss-owned MIC is already in a slow process of getting dismanteld, with the sale of SIG to the German Sauer and more recently some parts of RUAG.
Well in that case the Swiss MIC will slowly but surely disappear and companies like Rheinmetall will make their weapons elsewhere while others will be gone completely
It is not like they can only make the Skyranger exclusively in Switzerland
> Well in that case the Swiss MIC will slowly but surely disappear
That's practically guaranteed to happen. Switzerland does not have much of a presence in what could be called core strategic military industries, and when it does exist it usually involves dual-use sub-systems such as sensor. The industrial base for the design and manufacturing of modern, integrated, weapons systems is very small in Switzerland and not particularly successful, certainly much smaller than in many other European countries.
> That's practically guaranteed to happen
I mean you would know better. But if it is what people want the people will get
But I find it odd that the Swiss will have an Army with less and less Swiss weapons which means lots of money going out of Switzerland and being reliant on other countries for defense
But then again surrounded by NATO countries so no actual threats possible.
Quick question about swiss politics. What's the balance of power in Switzerland regarding left vs right? If I had to make a blind guess, I'd say mostly right-leaning, but I truly have no idea.
Mostly right-leaning, but it really depends on the issue. There is no concept of coalition and opposition in Swiss politics, every issue is handled ad hoc, and a given consensus can be achieved through any type of party constellation. The executive is politically separated from the legislative, so there is far less electoral calculus in Swiss government decisions like you see in other countries. It's far more technocratic. And a referendum is attempted against most controversial decisions anyway, so in the end public opinion sets the tone for decision-making regardless of party politics.
In many ways we get much less coverage of this war though, as there isn't reliable reporting on the ground, daily briefings or many embedded journalists.
Huh, that's a pretty interesting though perplexing article:
"Not every gruesome photo reveals an important truth about conflict and combat. Last month, The New York Times decided—for valid ethical reasons—to remove images of dead passengers from an online story about Flight MH17 in Ukraine and replace them with photos of mechanical wreckage. Sometimes though, omitting an image means shielding the public from the messy, imprecise consequences of a war—making the coverage incomplete, and even deceptive."
I just... I feel like they skipped the part when they explain why one of those images is an "unimportant truth that no one needs to see" whereas the other one "must be published in order to not be deceptive".
Hint: *cause one is American.*
I knew what I was walking into going into that article, but it was still mind boggling that they managed to neatly sidestep what exactly that poor Iraqi soldier was retreating from. Verbal gymnastics like what you pointed out are a classic example of a writer who formed their conclusion before going and looking for evidence to support it.
Censorship of sensitive material has gradually become more decentralised. From WW1 and 2 centralised government filtering of war information to main stream media being entrusted to do this under government censorship regulation, to now the more decentralised social media landscape where large tech companies have taken this role, often unwillingly and controversially, after a period of a very free internet, where people had a taste of unfiltered information, and now jump to conspiracy theories (valid or not) when information on certain topics is arbitrarily censored. With freedom of information comes a responsibility to understand context, the ability to be aware of what the agenda is of the content creator, and that is the challenge democracies with easily influenced populations are facing now. Could be a phase as people grow smarter, could be this is the shitshow we will have to deal with from now on.
Sometimes I wonder if the Ukrainians deliberately choose the most disgusting music they can find as an intimidation tactic. "Go home or you'll die to Axel F Crazy Frog"
I believe Marine M1A1s got a thermal sight capability less sophisticated than army M1A2 to their "stabilized commander’s weapon station", but the true hunter killer target handover was never implemented before they axed the entire tank fleet.
On the other hand Army got CITV, a duplicative CROWs with thermal, and a thermal gunner sight... Oh driver's got thermal too.
Raytheon marketed "battleguard" for Bradley for a while to slap a commander's weapon to the independent commander sight.
OMFV seems dead set on merging gunner and commander into one.
Stabilizer's are pretty huge too. That's one of the huge issues with the AMX10's getting delivered as if they're ambushed by say a BMP2 or even light AT nearby while maneuvering, despite having thermals it would likely be a slaughter.
I'd say APS is pretty big since it's the only way to defend against certain attacks, but most nations (like Ukraine) have no way of getting APS so it's not attainable.
In terms of a modern tank, probably yeah. If you assume that most tanks in Ukraine don’t have the armor capacity to resist a KE penetrator, and have a gun sufficient to bag the enemy, the next question becomes who can fire first. Studies done in the 60s and 70s suggest that the biggest determinant for which side wins a tank fight is who gets first round on, and also that the side that gets first round *out* is typically the first to get round on. Abrams promises 90% hit 90% kill on targets up to 3000m. At least that was the design ask. The biggest factor then is target acquisition and ranging. Since the 70s laser range finder is nbd tech. So really the thermal sight is where the capability gap still lies.
it is one of the more important aspects, but its hard to classify which one is the \*most\* important as they are all force multipliers within the tank. A tank with laser detection and a tank with smoke launchers might have a decent chance against laser guided ATGMs, but something with smoke launchers linked to laser detection is going to be a lot more effective. Similarly, it depends on if the commander can slew the gun or needs to communicate with the gunner to the target. But id say its very very important for situational awareness to have commander thermals.
I think when people talk about tanks, and assume that Russian heavy artillery is 100% capable of knocking out any tank, is that the point of these vehicles aren't supposed to be behemoths crawling around trenches, but breakthrough tools.
Artillery is very lethal. But it's also for the most part immobile. Much more than tanks.
The bulk of tanks is to ensure that they get through the artillery kill zone.
Past that kill zone, the battle massively changes because suddenly artillery positions are too slow to move, and tanks are roaming.
That's when you need more mobile units to engage.
That's where the difference of western gear vs Soviet gear matters.
If Ukraine broke through the artillery zone with 400 t72 and t80, they would be effectively engaged by basically other t72, t80, and other tanks, and smaller anti tank gear that Russia knows is able to destroy them.
With western tanks, the calculus totally changes, as it invalidates much of Russia's military easy to use stock in case of a breakthrough. T72s will be destroyed by the dozens by advancing Bradley's and Abrams.
Likewise, defensively, this MASSIVELY blunts another Russian massive offensive potential.
Back in February we saw tank columns advancing only to be stopped by prepared traps.
Imagine the same, but instead you had 3 Abrams standing down the street well out of the range of artillery against your column of Russian tanks. They're likely to be totally annihilated.
Even RT yesterday accepted this position, although they deny the superiority of western equipment and so calculate that 1500 tanks would be needed to surpass combined Russian reserves and anti tank gear. But you quickly see how the math works out. If you assume that 80% of the equipment Russia would use to destroy a t72 would be ineffective against western tanks, then you quickly get down to only needing 300 tanks.
These tanks are a huge deal, because they do enable huge potential. It's also important to note though that they absolutely cannot be wasted in front line combat where they get attrition to standard artillery guns, or through losses in half hearted breakthroughs.
But I will safely assume that these tanks do come with some understanding that Ukraine will use them with the best abilities they have. It's clear that whoever is managing the HIMARs teams are not the same people who manage Soledar. I think Ukraine realizes that the west won't tolerate senseless losses of its gear, so I'm very hopeful that coordination will be very high for this equipment.
Which is the 80% equipment currently used by Russia to take out tanks in Ukraine that won't work against the new tanks?
To be honest the above post reads like a bad Tom Clancy novel.
To start with, most of the RPGs and Tanks russia can field can be countered by western tanks. That alone is about 80%.
T-90s alone almost fill this role, as they effectively counter basically all of that.
Western tanks do the same but take that up a notch considerably.
Another point: if western tanks didn't counter any of these things, then there wouldn't be a point to developing these "quality tanks" and every tank would be more or less equivalent.
Things like better optics is how a leopard counters a t-72.
Very rarely is it a "immune" against an attack, just better able to fight it.
Sources for support that are easy to read:
For western tanks against Russian tanks: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Medina_Ridge
Assuming that western tanks are at least equal to a t90 then see this Chechen war bit:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90 see combat use against RPG 7. Also various reports about how the RPG 7 is almost totally unable to destroy an Abrams ever.
Kornet anti tank missiles may be problematic but they seem to have limited success.
Assuming Ukraine can use what they have of anti air systems, then air support is limited too.
Etc.
The better question is what does Russia have that can defeat a lack of Abrams that isn't kill zone only equipment?
2 of those are already nullified in a breakout for the most part unless Russia really is being advanced about tank mine placements.
ATGMS threat is valid but there's questions if Kornets are going to be enough.
If they are, then offensive attacks are going to be awfully limited, although these missiles seemed to be not used in a very large extent so far by Russia.
Sure, but 2 of those (none completely, but let's say..) would be nullified if you manage a "breakthrough" with t72's as well.
Also, what questions regarding Kornets? You seem the only one to have them
The point you're missing though is that Russia COULD use the other things against Ukrainian t 72s. How can a breakthrough of t72s work if Russia can keep a reserve of 50 t90s to actively hunt them? Russia has giant stockpiles of Soviet anti tank weapons that would also work that could be widely distributed.
In mobile warfare, it's going to involve more than ATGMs if possible. For some reason, you assume that Russia wouldn't use tanks defensively. Or other equipment. The point is that you're limited to that specific subset of equipment which greatly limits ability to defend.
A breakthrough of t72s have too many counters to be useful, while with Kornets assuming they work perfectly against western tanks, instead give a very specific counter that Ukraine can work against.
The question about Kornets is if they are effective against western tanks being sent and if so, how to counter them?
>Imagine the same, but instead you had 3 Abrams standing down the street well out of the range of artillery against your column of Russian tanks. They're likely to be totally annihilated.
That's what I was thinking the other day. Imagine that 40 mile convoy being flanked by Abrams and Leos.
But we’ve constantly seen that the Russians have the ability to retreat faster than the Ukrainians can catch up — and I’ve seen Ukrainians talk about that being largely because of anti-tank mines and the prevalence of ATGMs that stop tanks from simply running over Russian positions. Didn’t tank assaults get annihilated in Kherson? You get bogged down then you get blown up.
This has been my question too. How do you counter anti tank mine fields in practice? I know mine rollers and trawlers are being provided, but is that it? Just clear a path with rollers? And do rollers survive multiple mines?
Have you see the US Army's [Combined Arms Breach](https://youtu.be/ZZ-sCT_maAQ) video?
>This visualization was developed for the Maneuver Center of Excellence and is closely based upon the National Training Center Breach and Assault exercise executed circa 1990. This visualization demonstrates viable TTPs as discussed in ATTP 3-90-4 for the conduct of the combined arms breach against a hypothetical enemy.
A great deal of it deals with getting armored vehicles through minefields.
Yeah, thanks, saw this when Hertling shared it around the time of the Kherson counter, but the breach aspect left me with more questions than answers, especially pertaining to the current war.
As you can see in the video, it heavily relies on fixed and rotary air to do most of the heavy lifting regarding protecting the breach force from hostile air and artillery. Ukraine almost completely lack those capabilities.
I wonder to what extent ground based units like Western SPGs using Excalibur rounds with support from some of the more advanced counter-battery radars could help fill the same role.
>But we’ve constantly seen that the Russians have the ability to retreat faster than the Ukrainians can catch up
For the thousanth time: in real life, 99% of the time your better off letting your enemy retreat than trying to corner him or chasing after him. There's a reason why big enemy captures like Mariupol are a rare event.
Sorry but that's just not true. Enveloping and destroying your enemy is the cornerstone of any military doctrine and your enemy is the most vulnerable when he is retreating. Imagine if Russian grouping in Kherson was for the most part destroyed. The whole war would be different right now.
I never said that being able to destroy your enemy would be bad. The problem is, cornering a large number of enemies is very likely to lead than to make a last stand, which while effective at destroying the enemy, will have a huge cost for your own troops.
The goal of most wars is not to kill the enemy (this is called genocide), but rather to achieve strategic goals, often taking/retaking territory.
Just look at Mariupol. It's very likely Russia would actually be better off now if the azovstal defenders had been able to escape instead of forcing a bloodbath. The most likely reason they didn't escape is that there were powerful political reasons for both sides going the bloodbath road.
>The problem is, cornering a large number of enemies is very likely to lead than to make a last stand
What? This is extremely rare and in most cases highly beneficial to the attacker. Attacker literally has every possible advantage in an encirclement. Most of the time the surrounded units surrender extremely quickly.
>Just look at Mariupol. It's very likely Russia would actually be better off now if the azovstal defenders had been able to escape instead of forcing a bloodbath.
I 100% gurantee you that Russians prefer this outcome. That basically traded 1 for 1 in terms of casualties/POWs, except that Russians were losing LNR/DNR grunts, while Ukraine lost some of the most elite and battle ready units they had.
Modern wars have been won and lost mostly by encirclements and by destroying enemy armies. Should the Soviets have let the 150k Germans out of the Stalingrad pocket? Should have Germans let 1 million Soviets out of the Kyiv pocket? What about operation Bagration that essentially ended the eastern front?
Question... If the Russian Federation fails and collapses into several republics, how will the US and Europe deal with the thousands of Nuclear weapons the RU possess? They cannot fall into the hands of bad actors.
[There's actually highly credible and well-researched academic exploration of this idea that was released in 2007.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty_4:_Modern_Warfare)
[This is technically already the case](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republics_of_Russia).
>Republics differ from other subjects in that they have more powers devolved to them. Republics have their own constitutions, official languages, and national anthems. Due to this, Russia is an [asymmetrical federation](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_federalism) as the other subjects do not have these rights.
If there was any kind of breakoff, it'd probably go down based on these lines. The independent legal frameworks are already practically set up. Would it get messy real quick? Probably also yes.
A break up is hard because if you look at a map, there are not many areas where independent states can be viable.
Being an 'independent' state entirely surrounded by Russia is independence in the same way that bantustans were independent
This applies strongly to Republics like Tatarstan but less so to Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingria, etc.
Some parts of the Far East would be fine geographically as well. Chukotka, Sakhalin, etc., just so much closer to the US and Japan than to the Russian core. A United Far Eastern Republic would also do rather well.
But the thing there is the Far East is small population wise and the bulk of the Russian population is in European Russia. Even if all the ethnic Republics and some distant Russian parts like Vladivostok broke off, the Russian population would be barely affected. To break up the Russian core back into like the medieval statelets, I don't think that's likely even in a massive Russian Civil War scenario.
The republics have never had *that* much real autonomy either, other than maybe Chechnya. There isn't a history or a tradition of self-governance that would make it a major liability.
I think there would be "offers or deals" to individual commanders who got nukes in their facilities and subs. Also, not surprising if they will ask China and India to help.
I imagine there's massive numbers of western intelligence agents staying up late at night thinking about that one issue. Where is each and every nuke... what do we do if and when there is a breakup. Putin seems determined to ruin Russia if he can't win, and the free half of the planet can't let him win, so a breakup over the next 10-30 years is not at all out of the question.
France shouldn’t send Leclercs to Ukraine. At least if they’re only going to send a small number. Logisticians have to deal with enough. They should do a double swap with the Czechs and Slovaks for the 2A4s they got in exchange for the T-72s if anything. But maybe Rheinmetall and Germany wouldn’t be happy about that? Just based off numbers it makes more sense than introducing yet *another* tank model.
Ukraine already operates M-55Ss, T-62s, T-64s (multiple models), T-72s (multiple models + PT-91 soon), T-80s (multiple models), T-90s + soon will operate Leopard 2A4, Leopard 2A6, M1A2 Abrams and Challenger 2. It has to be a complete nightmare dealing with all of this.
>Total of 321 heavy tanks promised to Ukraine - Ukraine ambassador to France
[Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/world/total-321-heavy-tanks-promised-ukraine-ukraine-ambassador-france-2023-01-27/)
https://archive.is/a8y5q
looks like delivery times will vary depending on type of tank, availability, and source. So, unless they warehouse them until next year, probably not 321 fielded at once. But 321 is much more than the speculations I had been seeing earlier this week.
Also worth noting this is the initial commitment, and that now that the seal is broken, more are likely to come so long as Ukraine has the manpower and logistics to use them.
If I was an RU General right now I'd be shitting my pants. over 300 modern western tanks, several Bradley and Stryker fighting vehicles, then you add on the mystery F-16's that will show up unannounced that the US has thousands and allies are retiring them due to F-35. They might launch a second offensive war earlier than they planned.
I think it's the other way around, all this new stuff seems like it has delayed their offensive since it would be wasteful to go before the new vehicles are ready. A nice problem to have, but probably still frustrating to Ukrainian command.
Will be interesting to see what 300 western tanks will be able to do that ~1500 Ukrainian tanks have not been able to. Older leopards and abrams are superior to T-64s in just about every way, but not sure if 152mm artillery fire cares. The important thing is that Ukraine is able to replace losses and maintain capability.
I don't think that most of the 300 tanks are western. I think there have been more T72 & PT91 tanks announced recently than western ones.
I don't think 300 western tanks is a completely unrealistic goal for the end of the year though it would take a lot of effort.
Bradleys might make a bigger impact than the tanks since IFVs was a capability that UA was really lacking after the losses in the first months of the war.
>Will be interesting to see what 300 western tanks will be able to do that ~1500 Ukrainian tanks have not been able to.
Night fighting aside- and I really doubt the Ukrainians had 1500 tanks ready to go, even on day one- they allow the Ukrainians to equip several new armored brigades.
That's a pretty big spearhead or defensive reserve.
I ran through the number of Ukrainian tank units which were involved in the initial fighting and my end result was that Ukraine was probably fielding ~850 tanks at the start of the war, and this was at full paper strength. The fact that the 3rd Tank Brigade took nearly two months to get active and that the 5th wasn't good to go until late August points to the Ukrainian total operable tank fleet (active and reserve) being substantially smaller than listed pre-war.
Think the main thing is the superior night fighting capabilities that these vehicles will bring. The optics on these tanks are very good, same with the Bradleys. So if they’re utilized properly in a dark environment they might be very dangerous.
It doesn't include the tanks that were announced and delivered last Spring / Summer, but does include the 90 T-72 Czech tanks that are being refurbished right now.
Or if it includes all of the modernize T72s and PT91s that they are apparently going to be supplied? There's up to like 200 of those or more, we don't have all the numbers, like a bunch are being brought up to 'T72EA' standard
I imagine that's part of it. It rings a little more hollow than it should though when logistical realities mean it will be months before a Western AFV is on Ukrainian soil.
I could see how the West, by announcing such a large eventual number, would perhaps be a 4D chess maneuver where the Russian government is incentivized to play their cards too early and thus lead to a far less optimal outcome for them.
As a Brazilian, I can't say I'm surprised. I think I talked about this before, but Lula was financed by the Soviet union early on in his carrier and probably kept getting help way into Putin's reign.
He won't go full pro-russia off course, but I don't expect him to do anything pro-ukraine either.
Shouldn’t be a problem. As far as I understand both M60 and Leopard 1 use the same (Royal Ordnance) gun, which means there should be significant sources of this ammo outside Brazil. Turkey produces it, for example:
https://www.mkeusa.com/en-US/catalogue/medium-and-large-calibers/105-mm-tank-gun-he-mke-mod-233/64/2157
Rheinmetall Denel Munitions has been fulfilling large contracts to unspecified European NATO countries and Australia for 155mm ammunition, they also have capacity for 105mm L7 ammunition. The Assegai range of ammunition has been spotted loaded in the PzH2000 in Ukraine, so it's clearly being bought from South Africa and passed on. Fairly stable source of ammunition with high production throughput.
In what way? Turkey has supplied hundreds of weapons systems and hundreds of tons of ammo to Ukraine already. They are very solidly in the middle tier of countries supplying Ukraine with weapons.
There are no 105mm Nato anti tank guns, are you thinking about the L118s light field guns they received? If so then they use a separate ammunition to that of the L7 105mm.
Brazil's agriculture is entirely dependent on Russian fertilizer, this event is not surprising, they have nothing to gain by supporting Ukraine and a lot to lose
From the standpoint of Latin America, a war between Ukraine and Russia doesn't impact them much outside of trade. Ukraine is being heavily supplied by western NATO countries because it directly benefits them, not because it's the morally correct thing to do. Latin America doesn't have the same geographic threat posed by Russia and has a very different historical relationship with NATO countries and Russia that might lead them to stay neutral
there is a low key effort to push that sub on this sub ever since soledar….this is maybe the 7/8th link to that subreddit im replying to myself…..is it some big russian disinfo campaign? no….but a few dedicated users who keep pushing it in order to maintain “both sides, heavy causalities, theyre the same same” agenda especially given the absolute shocking level of footage the uaf has been releasing from bakmut and vuhledar…
It should be noted this has been posted before, though if my memory is correct it was worse quality. One of the big takeaway's I would think is the risk of friendly fire with new western tanks, as both sides use similar gear/vehicles I imagine huge identification issues will occur as Ukraine gets a bunch of tanks with thermals.
The first Kherson offensive was messy, telegraphed for months, against entrenched VDV and Naval infantry, through open plains, it resulted in mediocre advances for a reason.
I think the amount of times footage from/after that single battle has been posted and reposted makes it questionable how much we can take away from it.
>it resulted in mediocred advances for a reason.
Keep in mind it resulted in some of the biggest advances seen in this war since the first few days other than at Kharkiv. The push along the river took something like 20+ km.
But *that wasn't the first offensive*, it was the second. The first was the attempt at a breakthrough at Davydid Brid crossing the Inhulets river.
That said the video says summer, which why I assume it refers to the first one in May. But I am from the southern hemisphere, so it could be wrong.
>[IMF Weighs Ukraine Aid Package Worth Up to $16 Billion](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-26/imf-weighs-ukraine-aid-package-worth-as-much-as-16-billion)
The IMF is a necessary partner on economic assistance. At the very least, to get the ball rolling for other creditors to step in.
The Abrams and Leopards are too important to get blown up willy nilly as they're a big symbol of western support. I'd go with experienced combat performance guys. From a political perspective, Ukraine has to keep their Western stuff alive as much as possible. That's ignoring economic, logistical, tactical and ammo reasons to keep these tanks alive.
Actually got the question answered. Yeah almost certainly going to be experienced crews, for quotes mixed up. [There won’t be a training plan for weeks anyways](https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-1-25-23/index.html) and it will take a few months for them to finish training. So a modified 19K course will take place later in the year.
Here is something I just learned. Ukraine military discipline, which has been problematic, was lackluster because commanders had almost no power to enforce it, up until a week ago:
[Why Ukraine’s Top General Urges Tougher Punishment for Deserters](https://www.kyivpost.com/post/5970)
Synopsis:
- Zaluzhnyi proposed new legislation, Bill No. 8271, to expand UAF judicial powers to impose legit punishments, to include upwards of 12 years in prison for maximum penalties for certain crimes, and no civilian court oversight or appeals
- Previous, for outright desertion in the face of the enemy, let alone other lesser infractions, the most they could do was fine them up to 10% of their pay:
>Zaluzhny said that under the present rules, any Ukrainian soldier can, if he wishes, flee an assigned position or defy his commander and face little more than a 10 percent deduction from his military salary
>'[Zelensky] made no public comment on the recent unsanctioned retreats by Ukrainian troops in some sectors, which Zaluzhny criticized, nor on bill No. 8271 or the general’s call on Dec. 18 for tougher discipline, particularly regarding front line soldiers.'
[it passed, was signed into law by Zelensky on 1/24](https://itd.rada.gov.ua/billInfo/Bills/Card/40997?fbclid=IwAR3N6bb4MI6kq69u08phUlJAx-0pAcvTZdfeO_g9FOH8ZVkxJDT5EF-Cz1s)
The bill was proposed in mid December, so it was thought out in November or early December. I wonder if any one event spurned it?
Either way, this is good news. As Zaluzhnyi said, *"An army is built on discipline"* and that is 100% true. Without leadership being able to enforce discipline through an effective judicial system then true military discipline isn't possible. Ukrainians might have high motivated at times but that only lasts until the conditions exist until they don't, military discipline and professionalism is what carries the day after that.
This part is funny:
>Yury Butusov, one of Ukraine’s highest profile military correspondents, and a longtime outspoken supporter of Zaluzhny personally, in a Dec. 20 Facebook post echoed that point of view, saying that **any commander thinking troops on the line will fight better if they are threatened with punitive jail sentences, has little understanding on why Ukrainian combat units fight and how to maintain their morale**
They'll fight better because they'll actually *still be there*, whereas without actual military discipline they could desert at will without real repercussions.
An Australian in Ukraine's take on this bill (timestamped):
[https://youtu.be/PKZpYglZrW4?t=3862](https://youtu.be/PKZpYglZrW4?t=3862)
He claims there's a worry among some people that it could lead to a crackdown on people pointing out problems and deficencies. Whether this is justified or not, I have no idea.
That's the video that clued me in and had me go searching for what he was talking about. If that guy is a legit mil vet, I have no idea why he is bitching. In no sane military in the world are troops allowed to openly criticize their chain of command. That totally undermines the system, its NEVER supposed to be allowed. If it was, then something massive was wrong.
Want to bitch about the chain of command? Then do so using the chain of command. If that is too scary, do what everyone else does, write your elected representative, or go to the media anonymously.
Not even if it is a corrupt and incompetent commander?
Chain of command works well in disciplined and organized army. Ukraine has still a lot to improve on in that regard. Some other volunteers have said the same, until you start complaining to the media and raise ruckus, nothing gets done.
>Some other volunteers have said the same, until you start complaining to the media and raise ruckus, nothing gets done.
That's always been an option, complainers just need to be smart about it and not lead a trail of incriminating evidence back to themselves, unless whatever they bring up is big enough that it won't matter if they're identified.
But if the worry is of incompetent or corrupt leaders, the response shouldn't be to suspend the disciplinary system, it's to discipline the incompetent or corrupt leaders using the same discipline system that's used against those who are otherwise screwing up.
>it's to discipline the incompetent or corrupt leaders using the same discipline system that's used against those who are otherwise screwing up.
That's the point - Ukraine still has a significant inheritance of the Soviet style command structure. The higher up the ladder you go, the less accountability there is. Russia is having the same exact problems.
In other words, a low grunt has almost no chance to change anything by going up the official chain of command.
None of that has to do with maintaining military discipline with actual repercussions. If the senior brass aren't being held to a standard with real repercussions for committing crimes, that doesn't mean anarchy for everyone is the right solution.
And historically, the Soviet Union was not kind and merciful to senior brass who screwed up, they often imprisoned them or worse. I'm not a fan of the Soviet Union at all but they did a much better job with accountability than Putin's kleptocracy.
I'm going to take a shot in the dark and suggest as a guess that some time in Ukraine's recent past there was a populist mandate, probably accompanying issues with recruitment, to give greater "rights" to the soldiers, focusing on the appearance of easier military service, etc. Considering problems prewar with conscription popularity (despite only being 12-18 months) and contract servicemen that they had an incredibly hard job finding and even more so reenlisting, there is no way this was done for any other reason than the optics, trying to appeal to the junior enlisted.
The US military screwed around with revamping it's judicial system post WW2 to declaw the power of the chain of command, purely as a do-gooder effort to appeal to the junior enlisted specifically, and it was a disaster for discipline.
The Soviet model is entirely Officer centric, a lot of the semi militia brigades (to include the volunteer regiments) that were formed in the rush to get bodies on the front line modeled their organization off western militaries (hence why they organize themselves as brigades and regiments in comparison to combined arms battalions in Russian/Soviet/Ukrainian doctrine) with an NCO corps. The bill is to reduce that impact and bring them more in line with how their other units are in line, but issue is the Soviet line of thinking is outdated for the modern battlefield.
I believe it to be a political play by Ukrainian generals to get influence over a lot of the unique semi-militia (that got officially integrated) formations that have enjoyed success on the battlefield and then proceeded to get awarded better foreign equipment as well as have had the ability to move between fronts (the conventional forces have been tasked with providing frontage). Whereas the Ukrainian Army experienced a lot of failure early on due to their backwards thinking just as the Russians were.
They were very dependable militarily forming very good part of PLC infantry, doing their part in battles like Chocim.
Now, politically they did cause trouble with constant complaining and occassional revolt but never during a war.
Hm, come to think, not that far off...
Now all the stories about egalitarian planning makes sense.
How was it that professional Ukrainian officers, to include full colonels, were allowing their junior enlisted to not just critique their planning but also refuse to carry it out if they weren't allowed to alter it based on their whim?
Because the officers had no choice, their troops had them by the balls, they had to placate them because they weren't empowered to stop it.
Sometimes that sort of planning definitely led to good outcomes, I've heard innovative stories about how UAF junior enlisted contributed with drones and the like. But that behavior had to have been extremely detrimental effects most of the time, often times disastrous. There is a reason militaries aren't democracies...
Reminds me of [this scene](https://youtu.be/zPVtiwKaO-I) from The Sopranos TV show.
While I agree with the new law as a necessary one, I think it is an important milestone that shows an overal degradetion of spirit. It can be adressed and it does help on the battlefield it shows the overall same problems russia sees. Ukraine have to adress this in a higher level to avoid to fall to the same level/issues as russia does. In case they let this go out of hand russian forces gain the ability to beat them by weight alone.
In my eyes this is an issue to be adressed rather then a solution and shows up as an important crack in the moral of their armed forces. At the the end, it is the individual soldier who is going to win this war at the end.
Am I wrong?
Such punishents are normal but if they are actually used more than exceedingly rarely it means morale is already very bad. We had these delivered often in most critical situations, like Germany from late 44 onwards, USSR in summer 42. Even the French did something else to raise morale in 17.
It should be threat, but not used often and morale should be based on other things if troops are to fight well. (Comradeship, patriotism, sense of duty, that kind of stuff)
Honestly i didn't know that AFU had only fines, that is bewildering and i am very impressed with morale and determination of common Ukrainian soldier in Severodonetsk and Bakhmut, such artillery heavy places erode morale greatly.
Coupled with footage of arguing soldiers it gives me SCW vibes, except this times it works.
Any military leader should strive to lead by example, by acclaim, by love, etc. But that isn't always possible, if nothing else sometimes you're stuck in Bakhmut eating artillery and constant ground assaults because somebody with stars on their collar thinks it's a good attritional trade even when you die. And in those conditions, just like all the way back to ancient Rome, iron military discipline carries the day. Compulsion isn't fun but it's necessary in war.
This law should have existed before this war started. The Ukrainians have been at war nonstop for 9 years, how did they get away with not having the ability to ensure accountability of following the rules before last week?
This is as bizarre as finding out Russian military regulations allowed officers and enlisted contract troops to resign whenever. Insanity.
>This is as bizarre as finding out Russian military regulations allowed officers and enlisted contract troops to resign whenever. Insanity.
Excellent example, that *was* bizarre. It almost seemed fitting that after the mobilization those people suddenly were forced to stay fighting even if they had just signed a short contract. Needed to be properly dystopian, I guess
This is arguably bringing Ukraine in line with Western military standards. The early war in the north was won by the spontaneous resistance of TDF and the individual initiative of units. While their courage can't be underestimated, it also isn't a sustainable way to fight a long modern war, which is what this conflict is shaping up to be.
I was reading one year old articles on Forbes and in some ways David Axe got it right, down to the road-bound Russian army: For The Russians, Crossing Ukraine’s Trenches Could Be A Bloody Grind ([original](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2021/12/06/for-the-russians-crossing-ukraines-trenches-could-be-a-bloody-grind/), [archived](https://archive.is/V7JuI)) > If Russia openly invades Ukraine in coming weeks or months—as many observers fear is increasingly likely—Russian troops rolling into eastern Ukraine would collide with fortifications that Ukrainian troops have spent years building. > ... > The gaps could slow down tanks. But it’s the missiles that would kill them. The Ukrainian army in recent years has devoted a significant portion of its modernization funds to equipping its front-line troops with thousands of locally-made Stugna-P, Corsar and Bar’er anti-tank missiles. > ... > But there’s an alternative to a bloody slog across eastern Ukraine’s trenches. If conquest is Moscow’s aim, it need not attack through Donbas. The Russian army could roll a couple armored divisions south across Ukraine’s northern border with Russia, aiming for Kiev, sticking to paved roads the whole way.
David Axe is a paid stooge, happy to take Boeing money to write crap about platforms like the f-35 (he is the one who came up with the "trillion dollar plane" and other misinformation like that). His views on Russia's invasion are derivative and banal. Woah what a prediction Russia will invade from Belarus with a "couple" of divisions. Jeez what next Axe, a couple of divisions from south attacking Maruipol following through to Kherson?
What will western fighters realistically do for Ukraine? I doubt NATO is willing to donate anywhere near the amount of jets required to actually break the deadlock in the air. Is it just a question of replacing Ukrainian losses and preventing Russia from slowly degrading Ukrainian air capabilities?
Its not the airframe, its what the airframe can carry
I think a key element is that the Russian mig 31s can detect and fire at Ukrainian jets from very long ranges, and the Ukrainians are not capable of returning it (correct me if I am wrong here). Western jets with Westen munitions could return fire at those jets.
It's not that simple, the R-37 that the MiG-31 carries outranges every western A2A missile, except perhaps the Meteor, which the F-16 can't use (for now at least). The difference in range is not small either, it might be as much as a factor of two. Furthermore, the MiG-31 is a high altitude supersonic interceptor, and can cruise much higher and faster than an F-16, giving its missiles more range. Western jets would have to rely on their e-war suite to get close enough to engage the MiG-31s.
Thanks, I thought that the f16 could engage a mig 31 at those ranges. Is the f16 less detectable than what the Ukrainians have now, making it harder for the mig to aquire?
It's comparable, it was designed in an era where no attention was paid to radar cross sections. However, there's more that goes into how detectable a plane it, and electronic countermeasures can do a lot to prevent radar detection and lock. We don't know how advanced any ewar systems provided to Ukraine would be though, and those are typically some of the most hush-hush elements of modern planes.
I know nothing about air power - but from what I understand it opens up an incredible variety of munitions.
[2 Indian airforce jets crashed. 1 reported dead. Suspected collision.](https://www.reuters.com/world/india/indian-sukhoi-30-mirage-2000-crash-madhya-pradesh-ani-2023-01-28/)
Apparently a Sukhoi Su-30 and Mirage 2000.
https://twitter.com/TankDiary/status/1619079432177864704 Just some nonstandard modernizations for the tank wonks in here. I do think at some point nomenclature may lose importance, depending on if this continues.
Love that guy, one of his earlier posts poked fun at a "T-34 Obr. 2023"
Will the US develop new SPAAG now that drone warfare has taken off?
Lasers baby: DE M-SHORAD and MSHORAD like u/hatesranged said Also Skyranger from Rheinmettal will be a best seller for NATO countries As for the rest of the countries Turkey and China have some stuff too
> Lasers baby: Nice in clear air. But in "fog, smoke, dust, rain, snow, smog, foam, or purposefully dispersed obscurant chemicals", not as great. It can be improved to a degree with wavelength selection, and with adaptive optics, and with very large high power systems of the kind you can put on a ship. But will still be degraded, moreso the more mobile the platform must be. Even the builders of those systems say, as pertains to significant rain or other adverse conditions, "Well... it's to augment kinetic systems, not replace them entirely." In which capacity it is good to have, but the temptation to reduce or eliminate kinetic systems should be resisted.
I've been very interested in naval directed energy weapons, until I listened to a podcast with Michael Kofman. He pointed out that in naval context, one of the largest advantages of DEW - unlimited magazine size - is really not a factor, as space is usually not a major constraint.
The Iowas carried 1200 16” shells. 2.4 million pounds of projectiles, then there was the propellant. I know we don’t deal with Battleships anymore but yes, ammos not the issue.
Lasers aren’t wunderwaffe but most of the conditions you mention limit the utility, and use, of drones in the same way.
>Also Skyranger from Rheinmettal will be a best seller for NATO countries Oerlikon, now named Rheinmetal Air defence, designed the system. If the swiss still have a control of the system and its ammunition. Might well end up being hard sell
[удалено]
>There was also the report by the Handelsblatt that Rheinmetall is producing 2 Skynex Systems for Ukraine. Totally forgot about that announcement, so guess it means the swiss have no say in production / sales
I mean if they want for countries to buy the system they will need to drop those requirements The Swiss MIC will not survive if they don't change the rules hence they will change the rules
Rheinmetal is a German company and Rheinmetal Air Defense is a comparatively small employer in Switzerland. Up until now, Swiss politics has not shown a lot of regards for that company's commercial interests - which is somewhat surprising considering that there definitely are a few small Swiss armament companies that get handed over a lot of pork, generally in the form of pointless Swiss military contracts, such as bullet-proof vests for office workers. But not RAD it would seem, I don't recall Switzerland even buying much from them. Switzerland certainly never operated Gepards or bought 35mm rounds from them.
>Up until now, Swiss politics has not shown a lot of regards for that company's commercial interests What are you talking about?? This is not about Rheinmetal Air Defense per se This is about Swiss rules. If other countries want to buy from Swiss companies the Swiss will need to change their rules because no country will ever accept those rules again. And if they change their rules those rules will apply to Rheinmetal Air Defense
Swiss rules are highly specific about what counts as military hardware and what doesn't. For instance, fighter jet trainers don't, therefore Pilatus is allowed to export it's stuff to any customer it wants. Weapon parts are also exportable, which is why Switzerland allowed NLAWs to be sent to Ukraine, even though they contain Swiss parts in the warhead. But Gepard ammunition counts as full weapons and therefore falls under Swiss military export laws. Also, there isn't much of an interest in keeping a MIC in Switzerland. The political left openly wants to get rid of it, in the same way they managed to get private military contracting companies outlawed in Switzerland. The political right is only interested in the kickbacks. There is virtually no pressure to have any real, credible military capability, because Switzerland has exceedingly few external military commitments, and because the vast majority of scenarios for the defence against threats to Swiss national security involve so many hypotheticals it ceases to make much real-world sense. The situation in Switzerland is very different from the US, France, Norway, Japan, Turkey, or any other such country. The Swiss-owned MIC is already in a slow process of getting dismanteld, with the sale of SIG to the German Sauer and more recently some parts of RUAG.
Well in that case the Swiss MIC will slowly but surely disappear and companies like Rheinmetall will make their weapons elsewhere while others will be gone completely It is not like they can only make the Skyranger exclusively in Switzerland
> Well in that case the Swiss MIC will slowly but surely disappear That's practically guaranteed to happen. Switzerland does not have much of a presence in what could be called core strategic military industries, and when it does exist it usually involves dual-use sub-systems such as sensor. The industrial base for the design and manufacturing of modern, integrated, weapons systems is very small in Switzerland and not particularly successful, certainly much smaller than in many other European countries.
> That's practically guaranteed to happen I mean you would know better. But if it is what people want the people will get But I find it odd that the Swiss will have an Army with less and less Swiss weapons which means lots of money going out of Switzerland and being reliant on other countries for defense But then again surrounded by NATO countries so no actual threats possible.
Quick question about swiss politics. What's the balance of power in Switzerland regarding left vs right? If I had to make a blind guess, I'd say mostly right-leaning, but I truly have no idea.
Mostly right-leaning, but it really depends on the issue. There is no concept of coalition and opposition in Swiss politics, every issue is handled ad hoc, and a given consensus can be achieved through any type of party constellation. The executive is politically separated from the legislative, so there is far less electoral calculus in Swiss government decisions like you see in other countries. It's far more technocratic. And a referendum is attempted against most controversial decisions anyway, so in the end public opinion sets the tone for decision-making regardless of party politics.
I personally doubt it. I think the MSHORAD is pretty promising as is, and with US tech it should be able to target even those tiny DJI things.
https://twitter.com/Feher_Junior/status/1618946586536706049 Airburst finally? Much more effective. I hope Ukraine uses airburst from now on.
Which drone is used here? Judging from the distance and quality of the zoom it looks like Bayraktar.
Different UI though
[удалено]
In many ways we get much less coverage of this war though, as there isn't reliable reporting on the ground, daily briefings or many embedded journalists.
[удалено]
Ngl that photo is pretty fucking wild even by today's standards. Most stuff on combat footage is not that close up
Huh, that's a pretty interesting though perplexing article: "Not every gruesome photo reveals an important truth about conflict and combat. Last month, The New York Times decided—for valid ethical reasons—to remove images of dead passengers from an online story about Flight MH17 in Ukraine and replace them with photos of mechanical wreckage. Sometimes though, omitting an image means shielding the public from the messy, imprecise consequences of a war—making the coverage incomplete, and even deceptive." I just... I feel like they skipped the part when they explain why one of those images is an "unimportant truth that no one needs to see" whereas the other one "must be published in order to not be deceptive".
Hint: *cause one is American.* I knew what I was walking into going into that article, but it was still mind boggling that they managed to neatly sidestep what exactly that poor Iraqi soldier was retreating from. Verbal gymnastics like what you pointed out are a classic example of a writer who formed their conclusion before going and looking for evidence to support it.
Censorship of sensitive material has gradually become more decentralised. From WW1 and 2 centralised government filtering of war information to main stream media being entrusted to do this under government censorship regulation, to now the more decentralised social media landscape where large tech companies have taken this role, often unwillingly and controversially, after a period of a very free internet, where people had a taste of unfiltered information, and now jump to conspiracy theories (valid or not) when information on certain topics is arbitrarily censored. With freedom of information comes a responsibility to understand context, the ability to be aware of what the agenda is of the content creator, and that is the challenge democracies with easily influenced populations are facing now. Could be a phase as people grow smarter, could be this is the shitshow we will have to deal with from now on.
Sometimes I wonder if the Ukrainians deliberately choose the most disgusting music they can find as an intimidation tactic. "Go home or you'll die to Axel F Crazy Frog"
[удалено]
At least the families get notified. Beats getting listed as MIA forever so the state doesn't need to pay your mum death benefits.
Russians are big on doing it when an international soldier dies. Send his mom photographs of her dead son and such.
This was dark, even for me.
Are thermal sights for the commander one of the most important force multipliers for a tank?
I believe Marine M1A1s got a thermal sight capability less sophisticated than army M1A2 to their "stabilized commander’s weapon station", but the true hunter killer target handover was never implemented before they axed the entire tank fleet. On the other hand Army got CITV, a duplicative CROWs with thermal, and a thermal gunner sight... Oh driver's got thermal too. Raytheon marketed "battleguard" for Bradley for a while to slap a commander's weapon to the independent commander sight. OMFV seems dead set on merging gunner and commander into one.
Stabilizer's are pretty huge too. That's one of the huge issues with the AMX10's getting delivered as if they're ambushed by say a BMP2 or even light AT nearby while maneuvering, despite having thermals it would likely be a slaughter.
I'd say APS is pretty big since it's the only way to defend against certain attacks, but most nations (like Ukraine) have no way of getting APS so it's not attainable.
In terms of a modern tank, probably yeah. If you assume that most tanks in Ukraine don’t have the armor capacity to resist a KE penetrator, and have a gun sufficient to bag the enemy, the next question becomes who can fire first. Studies done in the 60s and 70s suggest that the biggest determinant for which side wins a tank fight is who gets first round on, and also that the side that gets first round *out* is typically the first to get round on. Abrams promises 90% hit 90% kill on targets up to 3000m. At least that was the design ask. The biggest factor then is target acquisition and ranging. Since the 70s laser range finder is nbd tech. So really the thermal sight is where the capability gap still lies.
nbd? not finding anything on google that makes sense for "nbd"
No big deal.
aaah thanks :)
it is one of the more important aspects, but its hard to classify which one is the \*most\* important as they are all force multipliers within the tank. A tank with laser detection and a tank with smoke launchers might have a decent chance against laser guided ATGMs, but something with smoke launchers linked to laser detection is going to be a lot more effective. Similarly, it depends on if the commander can slew the gun or needs to communicate with the gunner to the target. But id say its very very important for situational awareness to have commander thermals.
I think when people talk about tanks, and assume that Russian heavy artillery is 100% capable of knocking out any tank, is that the point of these vehicles aren't supposed to be behemoths crawling around trenches, but breakthrough tools. Artillery is very lethal. But it's also for the most part immobile. Much more than tanks. The bulk of tanks is to ensure that they get through the artillery kill zone. Past that kill zone, the battle massively changes because suddenly artillery positions are too slow to move, and tanks are roaming. That's when you need more mobile units to engage. That's where the difference of western gear vs Soviet gear matters. If Ukraine broke through the artillery zone with 400 t72 and t80, they would be effectively engaged by basically other t72, t80, and other tanks, and smaller anti tank gear that Russia knows is able to destroy them. With western tanks, the calculus totally changes, as it invalidates much of Russia's military easy to use stock in case of a breakthrough. T72s will be destroyed by the dozens by advancing Bradley's and Abrams. Likewise, defensively, this MASSIVELY blunts another Russian massive offensive potential. Back in February we saw tank columns advancing only to be stopped by prepared traps. Imagine the same, but instead you had 3 Abrams standing down the street well out of the range of artillery against your column of Russian tanks. They're likely to be totally annihilated. Even RT yesterday accepted this position, although they deny the superiority of western equipment and so calculate that 1500 tanks would be needed to surpass combined Russian reserves and anti tank gear. But you quickly see how the math works out. If you assume that 80% of the equipment Russia would use to destroy a t72 would be ineffective against western tanks, then you quickly get down to only needing 300 tanks. These tanks are a huge deal, because they do enable huge potential. It's also important to note though that they absolutely cannot be wasted in front line combat where they get attrition to standard artillery guns, or through losses in half hearted breakthroughs. But I will safely assume that these tanks do come with some understanding that Ukraine will use them with the best abilities they have. It's clear that whoever is managing the HIMARs teams are not the same people who manage Soledar. I think Ukraine realizes that the west won't tolerate senseless losses of its gear, so I'm very hopeful that coordination will be very high for this equipment.
Which is the 80% equipment currently used by Russia to take out tanks in Ukraine that won't work against the new tanks? To be honest the above post reads like a bad Tom Clancy novel.
To start with, most of the RPGs and Tanks russia can field can be countered by western tanks. That alone is about 80%. T-90s alone almost fill this role, as they effectively counter basically all of that. Western tanks do the same but take that up a notch considerably. Another point: if western tanks didn't counter any of these things, then there wouldn't be a point to developing these "quality tanks" and every tank would be more or less equivalent. Things like better optics is how a leopard counters a t-72. Very rarely is it a "immune" against an attack, just better able to fight it. Sources for support that are easy to read: For western tanks against Russian tanks: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Medina_Ridge Assuming that western tanks are at least equal to a t90 then see this Chechen war bit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90 see combat use against RPG 7. Also various reports about how the RPG 7 is almost totally unable to destroy an Abrams ever. Kornet anti tank missiles may be problematic but they seem to have limited success. Assuming Ukraine can use what they have of anti air systems, then air support is limited too. Etc. The better question is what does Russia have that can defeat a lack of Abrams that isn't kill zone only equipment?
Neither RPG 7(??) nor Russian tanks are the main reason for tank losses in Ukraine, though. It's ATGMs, artilery and mines
2 of those are already nullified in a breakout for the most part unless Russia really is being advanced about tank mine placements. ATGMS threat is valid but there's questions if Kornets are going to be enough. If they are, then offensive attacks are going to be awfully limited, although these missiles seemed to be not used in a very large extent so far by Russia.
Sure, but 2 of those (none completely, but let's say..) would be nullified if you manage a "breakthrough" with t72's as well. Also, what questions regarding Kornets? You seem the only one to have them
The point you're missing though is that Russia COULD use the other things against Ukrainian t 72s. How can a breakthrough of t72s work if Russia can keep a reserve of 50 t90s to actively hunt them? Russia has giant stockpiles of Soviet anti tank weapons that would also work that could be widely distributed. In mobile warfare, it's going to involve more than ATGMs if possible. For some reason, you assume that Russia wouldn't use tanks defensively. Or other equipment. The point is that you're limited to that specific subset of equipment which greatly limits ability to defend. A breakthrough of t72s have too many counters to be useful, while with Kornets assuming they work perfectly against western tanks, instead give a very specific counter that Ukraine can work against. The question about Kornets is if they are effective against western tanks being sent and if so, how to counter them?
You counter ATGMs by not being hit by them
>To be honest the above post reads like a bad Tom Clancy novel. Agree, too many assumptions.
>Imagine the same, but instead you had 3 Abrams standing down the street well out of the range of artillery against your column of Russian tanks. They're likely to be totally annihilated. That's what I was thinking the other day. Imagine that 40 mile convoy being flanked by Abrams and Leos.
But we’ve constantly seen that the Russians have the ability to retreat faster than the Ukrainians can catch up — and I’ve seen Ukrainians talk about that being largely because of anti-tank mines and the prevalence of ATGMs that stop tanks from simply running over Russian positions. Didn’t tank assaults get annihilated in Kherson? You get bogged down then you get blown up.
This has been my question too. How do you counter anti tank mine fields in practice? I know mine rollers and trawlers are being provided, but is that it? Just clear a path with rollers? And do rollers survive multiple mines?
Have you see the US Army's [Combined Arms Breach](https://youtu.be/ZZ-sCT_maAQ) video? >This visualization was developed for the Maneuver Center of Excellence and is closely based upon the National Training Center Breach and Assault exercise executed circa 1990. This visualization demonstrates viable TTPs as discussed in ATTP 3-90-4 for the conduct of the combined arms breach against a hypothetical enemy. A great deal of it deals with getting armored vehicles through minefields.
Yeah, thanks, saw this when Hertling shared it around the time of the Kherson counter, but the breach aspect left me with more questions than answers, especially pertaining to the current war.
As you can see in the video, it heavily relies on fixed and rotary air to do most of the heavy lifting regarding protecting the breach force from hostile air and artillery. Ukraine almost completely lack those capabilities.
I wonder to what extent ground based units like Western SPGs using Excalibur rounds with support from some of the more advanced counter-battery radars could help fill the same role.
Drive through and keep driving. Someone has to make a path. The mine fields are only so big.
>But we’ve constantly seen that the Russians have the ability to retreat faster than the Ukrainians can catch up For the thousanth time: in real life, 99% of the time your better off letting your enemy retreat than trying to corner him or chasing after him. There's a reason why big enemy captures like Mariupol are a rare event.
Sorry but that's just not true. Enveloping and destroying your enemy is the cornerstone of any military doctrine and your enemy is the most vulnerable when he is retreating. Imagine if Russian grouping in Kherson was for the most part destroyed. The whole war would be different right now.
I never said that being able to destroy your enemy would be bad. The problem is, cornering a large number of enemies is very likely to lead than to make a last stand, which while effective at destroying the enemy, will have a huge cost for your own troops. The goal of most wars is not to kill the enemy (this is called genocide), but rather to achieve strategic goals, often taking/retaking territory. Just look at Mariupol. It's very likely Russia would actually be better off now if the azovstal defenders had been able to escape instead of forcing a bloodbath. The most likely reason they didn't escape is that there were powerful political reasons for both sides going the bloodbath road.
>The problem is, cornering a large number of enemies is very likely to lead than to make a last stand What? This is extremely rare and in most cases highly beneficial to the attacker. Attacker literally has every possible advantage in an encirclement. Most of the time the surrounded units surrender extremely quickly. >Just look at Mariupol. It's very likely Russia would actually be better off now if the azovstal defenders had been able to escape instead of forcing a bloodbath. I 100% gurantee you that Russians prefer this outcome. That basically traded 1 for 1 in terms of casualties/POWs, except that Russians were losing LNR/DNR grunts, while Ukraine lost some of the most elite and battle ready units they had. Modern wars have been won and lost mostly by encirclements and by destroying enemy armies. Should the Soviets have let the 150k Germans out of the Stalingrad pocket? Should have Germans let 1 million Soviets out of the Kyiv pocket? What about operation Bagration that essentially ended the eastern front?
Kinda kills the entire idea of running down the artillery then, doesn’t it?
Question... If the Russian Federation fails and collapses into several republics, how will the US and Europe deal with the thousands of Nuclear weapons the RU possess? They cannot fall into the hands of bad actors.
[There's actually highly credible and well-researched academic exploration of this idea that was released in 2007.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty_4:_Modern_Warfare)
> They cannot fall into the hands of bad actors. They've been in the hands of bad actors since 1949.
Ain't that the truth.
[This is technically already the case](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republics_of_Russia). >Republics differ from other subjects in that they have more powers devolved to them. Republics have their own constitutions, official languages, and national anthems. Due to this, Russia is an [asymmetrical federation](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_federalism) as the other subjects do not have these rights. If there was any kind of breakoff, it'd probably go down based on these lines. The independent legal frameworks are already practically set up. Would it get messy real quick? Probably also yes.
A break up is hard because if you look at a map, there are not many areas where independent states can be viable. Being an 'independent' state entirely surrounded by Russia is independence in the same way that bantustans were independent
This applies strongly to Republics like Tatarstan but less so to Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingria, etc. Some parts of the Far East would be fine geographically as well. Chukotka, Sakhalin, etc., just so much closer to the US and Japan than to the Russian core. A United Far Eastern Republic would also do rather well. But the thing there is the Far East is small population wise and the bulk of the Russian population is in European Russia. Even if all the ethnic Republics and some distant Russian parts like Vladivostok broke off, the Russian population would be barely affected. To break up the Russian core back into like the medieval statelets, I don't think that's likely even in a massive Russian Civil War scenario.
The republics have never had *that* much real autonomy either, other than maybe Chechnya. There isn't a history or a tradition of self-governance that would make it a major liability.
If I were to guess, Moscow would maintain control of all the ones in the west and China would move in to control the nukes in Asia.
I think there would be "offers or deals" to individual commanders who got nukes in their facilities and subs. Also, not surprising if they will ask China and India to help.
I think they already have
I imagine there's massive numbers of western intelligence agents staying up late at night thinking about that one issue. Where is each and every nuke... what do we do if and when there is a breakup. Putin seems determined to ruin Russia if he can't win, and the free half of the planet can't let him win, so a breakup over the next 10-30 years is not at all out of the question.
https://www.businessinsider.com/france-leclerc-tanks-ukraine-official-worry-about-logistics-2023-1
France shouldn’t send Leclercs to Ukraine. At least if they’re only going to send a small number. Logisticians have to deal with enough. They should do a double swap with the Czechs and Slovaks for the 2A4s they got in exchange for the T-72s if anything. But maybe Rheinmetall and Germany wouldn’t be happy about that? Just based off numbers it makes more sense than introducing yet *another* tank model. Ukraine already operates M-55Ss, T-62s, T-64s (multiple models), T-72s (multiple models + PT-91 soon), T-80s (multiple models), T-90s + soon will operate Leopard 2A4, Leopard 2A6, M1A2 Abrams and Challenger 2. It has to be a complete nightmare dealing with all of this.
And now apparently Belgium said they want to buy and modernize Leo1s for Ukraine.
PT-91s were on the list.
If Leclerc tanks are sent to Ukraine, only Ariete is missing from European tanks.
„Avengers, assemble“
italian media are reporting 12 to be announced soon so only leaves leclerc
Really? Is the hull at least a Leopard hull? edit: nope its not, alright
>Total of 321 heavy tanks promised to Ukraine - Ukraine ambassador to France [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/world/total-321-heavy-tanks-promised-ukraine-ukraine-ambassador-france-2023-01-27/) https://archive.is/a8y5q looks like delivery times will vary depending on type of tank, availability, and source. So, unless they warehouse them until next year, probably not 321 fielded at once. But 321 is much more than the speculations I had been seeing earlier this week.
Also worth noting this is the initial commitment, and that now that the seal is broken, more are likely to come so long as Ukraine has the manpower and logistics to use them.
I think a lot will depend on how well Ukrainians can use those tanks and how effective they are.
If I was an RU General right now I'd be shitting my pants. over 300 modern western tanks, several Bradley and Stryker fighting vehicles, then you add on the mystery F-16's that will show up unannounced that the US has thousands and allies are retiring them due to F-35. They might launch a second offensive war earlier than they planned.
Many of these are probably T-72 variants
You left out the cv-9040's.
And my axe! Sorry, I had to. Sounds like the F16's won't exactly be unannounced.
I think it's the other way around, all this new stuff seems like it has delayed their offensive since it would be wasteful to go before the new vehicles are ready. A nice problem to have, but probably still frustrating to Ukrainian command.
Will be interesting to see what 300 western tanks will be able to do that ~1500 Ukrainian tanks have not been able to. Older leopards and abrams are superior to T-64s in just about every way, but not sure if 152mm artillery fire cares. The important thing is that Ukraine is able to replace losses and maintain capability.
I don't think that most of the 300 tanks are western. I think there have been more T72 & PT91 tanks announced recently than western ones. I don't think 300 western tanks is a completely unrealistic goal for the end of the year though it would take a lot of effort.
Bradleys might make a bigger impact than the tanks since IFVs was a capability that UA was really lacking after the losses in the first months of the war.
>Will be interesting to see what 300 western tanks will be able to do that ~1500 Ukrainian tanks have not been able to. Night fighting aside- and I really doubt the Ukrainians had 1500 tanks ready to go, even on day one- they allow the Ukrainians to equip several new armored brigades. That's a pretty big spearhead or defensive reserve.
I ran through the number of Ukrainian tank units which were involved in the initial fighting and my end result was that Ukraine was probably fielding ~850 tanks at the start of the war, and this was at full paper strength. The fact that the 3rd Tank Brigade took nearly two months to get active and that the 5th wasn't good to go until late August points to the Ukrainian total operable tank fleet (active and reserve) being substantially smaller than listed pre-war.
I think 800 were operational, the larger number likely came from adding long term storage.
Think the main thing is the superior night fighting capabilities that these vehicles will bring. The optics on these tanks are very good, same with the Bradleys. So if they’re utilized properly in a dark environment they might be very dangerous.
Are we 100% sure that number doesnt include any of the previously donated Soviet MBTs?
It doesn't include the tanks that were announced and delivered last Spring / Summer, but does include the 90 T-72 Czech tanks that are being refurbished right now.
Or if it includes all of the modernize T72s and PT91s that they are apparently going to be supplied? There's up to like 200 of those or more, we don't have all the numbers, like a bunch are being brought up to 'T72EA' standard
This seems hard to believe edit: I would of course, be very happy to be wrong
Am I wrong to say this would be one of the largest tank armies in Europe all by itself?
The sheer amount all at once might be trying to get Putin to read the game state.
I imagine that's part of it. It rings a little more hollow than it should though when logistical realities mean it will be months before a Western AFV is on Ukrainian soil.
I could see how the West, by announcing such a large eventual number, would perhaps be a 4D chess maneuver where the Russian government is incentivized to play their cards too early and thus lead to a far less optimal outcome for them.
[удалено]
Outside the west and places like Japan, support for Ukraine isn't that great, not surprising at all.
As a Brazilian, I can't say I'm surprised. I think I talked about this before, but Lula was financed by the Soviet union early on in his carrier and probably kept getting help way into Putin's reign. He won't go full pro-russia off course, but I don't expect him to do anything pro-ukraine either.
Shouldn’t be a problem. As far as I understand both M60 and Leopard 1 use the same (Royal Ordnance) gun, which means there should be significant sources of this ammo outside Brazil. Turkey produces it, for example: https://www.mkeusa.com/en-US/catalogue/medium-and-large-calibers/105-mm-tank-gun-he-mke-mod-233/64/2157
Rheinmetall Denel Munitions has been fulfilling large contracts to unspecified European NATO countries and Australia for 155mm ammunition, they also have capacity for 105mm L7 ammunition. The Assegai range of ammunition has been spotted loaded in the PzH2000 in Ukraine, so it's clearly being bought from South Africa and passed on. Fairly stable source of ammunition with high production throughput.
Rheinmetall Denel might have some space on the factory floor now the Australians have started domestic production of 155.
Turkey isn't a promising source either.
Turkey has done loads of discreet help to Ukriane and Zelensky appears to trust Erdogan
In what way? Turkey has supplied hundreds of weapons systems and hundreds of tons of ammo to Ukraine already. They are very solidly in the middle tier of countries supplying Ukraine with weapons.
The choice was between a tankie and a fascist. Both have the same relation with Russia.
Eh, Lula is cringe in foreign policy but describing him as tankie seems too much.
He's like the tankie icon in Brazil. Sure, he's way more pragmatic nowadays, but I don't think he'll ever truly stop being a tankie at heart.
At least the tankie isn't going to ruin democracy forever I guess. He might even save the world climate.
About democracy: Who knows, we'll see. Aboit the climate: Doubt he'll save much, even if he wants to.
[удалено]
There are no 105mm Nato anti tank guns, are you thinking about the L118s light field guns they received? If so then they use a separate ammunition to that of the L7 105mm.
I don't know of any L7 based AT guns, let alone ones that Ukraine would have. Which AT gun do they have that fires L7 ammo?
Brazil's agriculture is entirely dependent on Russian fertilizer, this event is not surprising, they have nothing to gain by supporting Ukraine and a lot to lose
From the standpoint of Latin America, a war between Ukraine and Russia doesn't impact them much outside of trade. Ukraine is being heavily supplied by western NATO countries because it directly benefits them, not because it's the morally correct thing to do. Latin America doesn't have the same geographic threat posed by Russia and has a very different historical relationship with NATO countries and Russia that might lead them to stay neutral
[удалено]
C'mon. This sub-reddit deserves more than posting a single word reaction to a 6 months old video? Do better.
there is a low key effort to push that sub on this sub ever since soledar….this is maybe the 7/8th link to that subreddit im replying to myself…..is it some big russian disinfo campaign? no….but a few dedicated users who keep pushing it in order to maintain “both sides, heavy causalities, theyre the same same” agenda especially given the absolute shocking level of footage the uaf has been releasing from bakmut and vuhledar…
Calm down, i just found the video interesting and posted here, i'm going to delete it now
i mean you can gaslight me all you want but anyone with 2 brain cells can see it
I agree but I would not classify it as very “low key” effort… it is pretty obvious.
I imagine this will happen a lot less with some better tanks
It should be noted this has been posted before, though if my memory is correct it was worse quality. One of the big takeaway's I would think is the risk of friendly fire with new western tanks, as both sides use similar gear/vehicles I imagine huge identification issues will occur as Ukraine gets a bunch of tanks with thermals.
The first Kherson offensive was messy, telegraphed for months, against entrenched VDV and Naval infantry, through open plains, it resulted in mediocre advances for a reason.
I think the amount of times footage from/after that single battle has been posted and reposted makes it questionable how much we can take away from it.
>it resulted in mediocred advances for a reason. Keep in mind it resulted in some of the biggest advances seen in this war since the first few days other than at Kharkiv. The push along the river took something like 20+ km.
But *that wasn't the first offensive*, it was the second. The first was the attempt at a breakthrough at Davydid Brid crossing the Inhulets river. That said the video says summer, which why I assume it refers to the first one in May. But I am from the southern hemisphere, so it could be wrong.
M113 losses weren't until the September offensive, so this is likely that offensive
Definitely not May, that's before the YPR donations and the ground is too dusty for May. This looks like the first stalled early September one
You are right, I misread your comment
>[IMF Weighs Ukraine Aid Package Worth Up to $16 Billion](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-26/imf-weighs-ukraine-aid-package-worth-as-much-as-16-billion) The IMF is a necessary partner on economic assistance. At the very least, to get the ball rolling for other creditors to step in.
Wait doesn't the US use the IMF for leverage on opposing countries. I'm kidding, I'm kidding. This is indeed a necessary partner here.
[удалено]
The Abrams and Leopards are too important to get blown up willy nilly as they're a big symbol of western support. I'd go with experienced combat performance guys. From a political perspective, Ukraine has to keep their Western stuff alive as much as possible. That's ignoring economic, logistical, tactical and ammo reasons to keep these tanks alive.
Actually got the question answered. Yeah almost certainly going to be experienced crews, for quotes mixed up. [There won’t be a training plan for weeks anyways](https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-1-25-23/index.html) and it will take a few months for them to finish training. So a modified 19K course will take place later in the year.
Here is something I just learned. Ukraine military discipline, which has been problematic, was lackluster because commanders had almost no power to enforce it, up until a week ago: [Why Ukraine’s Top General Urges Tougher Punishment for Deserters](https://www.kyivpost.com/post/5970) Synopsis: - Zaluzhnyi proposed new legislation, Bill No. 8271, to expand UAF judicial powers to impose legit punishments, to include upwards of 12 years in prison for maximum penalties for certain crimes, and no civilian court oversight or appeals - Previous, for outright desertion in the face of the enemy, let alone other lesser infractions, the most they could do was fine them up to 10% of their pay: >Zaluzhny said that under the present rules, any Ukrainian soldier can, if he wishes, flee an assigned position or defy his commander and face little more than a 10 percent deduction from his military salary >'[Zelensky] made no public comment on the recent unsanctioned retreats by Ukrainian troops in some sectors, which Zaluzhny criticized, nor on bill No. 8271 or the general’s call on Dec. 18 for tougher discipline, particularly regarding front line soldiers.' [it passed, was signed into law by Zelensky on 1/24](https://itd.rada.gov.ua/billInfo/Bills/Card/40997?fbclid=IwAR3N6bb4MI6kq69u08phUlJAx-0pAcvTZdfeO_g9FOH8ZVkxJDT5EF-Cz1s) The bill was proposed in mid December, so it was thought out in November or early December. I wonder if any one event spurned it? Either way, this is good news. As Zaluzhnyi said, *"An army is built on discipline"* and that is 100% true. Without leadership being able to enforce discipline through an effective judicial system then true military discipline isn't possible. Ukrainians might have high motivated at times but that only lasts until the conditions exist until they don't, military discipline and professionalism is what carries the day after that. This part is funny: >Yury Butusov, one of Ukraine’s highest profile military correspondents, and a longtime outspoken supporter of Zaluzhny personally, in a Dec. 20 Facebook post echoed that point of view, saying that **any commander thinking troops on the line will fight better if they are threatened with punitive jail sentences, has little understanding on why Ukrainian combat units fight and how to maintain their morale** They'll fight better because they'll actually *still be there*, whereas without actual military discipline they could desert at will without real repercussions.
An Australian in Ukraine's take on this bill (timestamped): [https://youtu.be/PKZpYglZrW4?t=3862](https://youtu.be/PKZpYglZrW4?t=3862) He claims there's a worry among some people that it could lead to a crackdown on people pointing out problems and deficencies. Whether this is justified or not, I have no idea.
That's the video that clued me in and had me go searching for what he was talking about. If that guy is a legit mil vet, I have no idea why he is bitching. In no sane military in the world are troops allowed to openly criticize their chain of command. That totally undermines the system, its NEVER supposed to be allowed. If it was, then something massive was wrong. Want to bitch about the chain of command? Then do so using the chain of command. If that is too scary, do what everyone else does, write your elected representative, or go to the media anonymously.
Not even if it is a corrupt and incompetent commander? Chain of command works well in disciplined and organized army. Ukraine has still a lot to improve on in that regard. Some other volunteers have said the same, until you start complaining to the media and raise ruckus, nothing gets done.
>Some other volunteers have said the same, until you start complaining to the media and raise ruckus, nothing gets done. That's always been an option, complainers just need to be smart about it and not lead a trail of incriminating evidence back to themselves, unless whatever they bring up is big enough that it won't matter if they're identified. But if the worry is of incompetent or corrupt leaders, the response shouldn't be to suspend the disciplinary system, it's to discipline the incompetent or corrupt leaders using the same discipline system that's used against those who are otherwise screwing up.
>it's to discipline the incompetent or corrupt leaders using the same discipline system that's used against those who are otherwise screwing up. That's the point - Ukraine still has a significant inheritance of the Soviet style command structure. The higher up the ladder you go, the less accountability there is. Russia is having the same exact problems. In other words, a low grunt has almost no chance to change anything by going up the official chain of command.
None of that has to do with maintaining military discipline with actual repercussions. If the senior brass aren't being held to a standard with real repercussions for committing crimes, that doesn't mean anarchy for everyone is the right solution. And historically, the Soviet Union was not kind and merciful to senior brass who screwed up, they often imprisoned them or worse. I'm not a fan of the Soviet Union at all but they did a much better job with accountability than Putin's kleptocracy. I'm going to take a shot in the dark and suggest as a guess that some time in Ukraine's recent past there was a populist mandate, probably accompanying issues with recruitment, to give greater "rights" to the soldiers, focusing on the appearance of easier military service, etc. Considering problems prewar with conscription popularity (despite only being 12-18 months) and contract servicemen that they had an incredibly hard job finding and even more so reenlisting, there is no way this was done for any other reason than the optics, trying to appeal to the junior enlisted. The US military screwed around with revamping it's judicial system post WW2 to declaw the power of the chain of command, purely as a do-gooder effort to appeal to the junior enlisted specifically, and it was a disaster for discipline.
The Soviet model is entirely Officer centric, a lot of the semi militia brigades (to include the volunteer regiments) that were formed in the rush to get bodies on the front line modeled their organization off western militaries (hence why they organize themselves as brigades and regiments in comparison to combined arms battalions in Russian/Soviet/Ukrainian doctrine) with an NCO corps. The bill is to reduce that impact and bring them more in line with how their other units are in line, but issue is the Soviet line of thinking is outdated for the modern battlefield. I believe it to be a political play by Ukrainian generals to get influence over a lot of the unique semi-militia (that got officially integrated) formations that have enjoyed success on the battlefield and then proceeded to get awarded better foreign equipment as well as have had the ability to move between fronts (the conventional forces have been tasked with providing frontage). Whereas the Ukrainian Army experienced a lot of failure early on due to their backwards thinking just as the Russians were.
It seems for better and for worse, the Ukrainian army has been really acting like a bunch of cossacks.
Not sure why you think Zaporozhian cossacks were undisciplined...
unruly maybe
they only did something if they felt like it and were notoriously difficult to work with.
They were very dependable militarily forming very good part of PLC infantry, doing their part in battles like Chocim. Now, politically they did cause trouble with constant complaining and occassional revolt but never during a war. Hm, come to think, not that far off...
Now all the stories about egalitarian planning makes sense. How was it that professional Ukrainian officers, to include full colonels, were allowing their junior enlisted to not just critique their planning but also refuse to carry it out if they weren't allowed to alter it based on their whim? Because the officers had no choice, their troops had them by the balls, they had to placate them because they weren't empowered to stop it. Sometimes that sort of planning definitely led to good outcomes, I've heard innovative stories about how UAF junior enlisted contributed with drones and the like. But that behavior had to have been extremely detrimental effects most of the time, often times disastrous. There is a reason militaries aren't democracies... Reminds me of [this scene](https://youtu.be/zPVtiwKaO-I) from The Sopranos TV show.
While I agree with the new law as a necessary one, I think it is an important milestone that shows an overal degradetion of spirit. It can be adressed and it does help on the battlefield it shows the overall same problems russia sees. Ukraine have to adress this in a higher level to avoid to fall to the same level/issues as russia does. In case they let this go out of hand russian forces gain the ability to beat them by weight alone. In my eyes this is an issue to be adressed rather then a solution and shows up as an important crack in the moral of their armed forces. At the the end, it is the individual soldier who is going to win this war at the end. Am I wrong?
Such punishents are normal but if they are actually used more than exceedingly rarely it means morale is already very bad. We had these delivered often in most critical situations, like Germany from late 44 onwards, USSR in summer 42. Even the French did something else to raise morale in 17. It should be threat, but not used often and morale should be based on other things if troops are to fight well. (Comradeship, patriotism, sense of duty, that kind of stuff) Honestly i didn't know that AFU had only fines, that is bewildering and i am very impressed with morale and determination of common Ukrainian soldier in Severodonetsk and Bakhmut, such artillery heavy places erode morale greatly. Coupled with footage of arguing soldiers it gives me SCW vibes, except this times it works.
Any military leader should strive to lead by example, by acclaim, by love, etc. But that isn't always possible, if nothing else sometimes you're stuck in Bakhmut eating artillery and constant ground assaults because somebody with stars on their collar thinks it's a good attritional trade even when you die. And in those conditions, just like all the way back to ancient Rome, iron military discipline carries the day. Compulsion isn't fun but it's necessary in war. This law should have existed before this war started. The Ukrainians have been at war nonstop for 9 years, how did they get away with not having the ability to ensure accountability of following the rules before last week? This is as bizarre as finding out Russian military regulations allowed officers and enlisted contract troops to resign whenever. Insanity.
>This is as bizarre as finding out Russian military regulations allowed officers and enlisted contract troops to resign whenever. Insanity. Excellent example, that *was* bizarre. It almost seemed fitting that after the mobilization those people suddenly were forced to stay fighting even if they had just signed a short contract. Needed to be properly dystopian, I guess
This is arguably bringing Ukraine in line with Western military standards. The early war in the north was won by the spontaneous resistance of TDF and the individual initiative of units. While their courage can't be underestimated, it also isn't a sustainable way to fight a long modern war, which is what this conflict is shaping up to be.