Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
The obvious conclusion being that too much emphasis is being placed on the story will they/won't they get Leopard tanks and that they won't be definitive game changers on the ground.
It is a step forward. It should have been done 8+ months ago.
next level trolling
The 14 tanks from Poland isn't even a step it's just to few to have any meaningful impact. Until a coalition of Leopard users has been formed and they can provide at least 200 - 300 tanks with training, ammunition and spare parts they will not play any meaningful role in the war.
Reports in Germany suggest that the US will finally agree to Scholz request to deliver Abrams, so Germany should deliver some Leopard and allow states like Poland to send theirs.
If true then only Scholz reluctance has gotten Abrams to Ukraine, as the US tried to pressure Germany to just deliver Leopard...
To me that looks like a political maneuvre to put pressure on Scholz. It seems to be a direct consequence of Baerbock's statement a few days ago. Even if the impact isn't too big in a military sense, it might be a step in the right direction from a diplomatic perspective and only increases the chances that Germany will follow through with what you demand.
They can't send 300 tanks all at once. And it is not fair just for Poland to provide 300 tanks. If Poland provides 300 tanks, then Germany, given its size/economy/manufacturing strength etc, should also provide 1000+ tanks. The problem is not the number of tanks, the problem is that Germany does not do anything without a lot of external pressure. This story did not start last week, it has been going on for MONTHS. Germany should have provided the tanks first, and then Germany should pressure others to provide tanks, not the other way around!
I know these propagandists will continue this kind of rhetoric. But does the average Russian viewer never think to himself "you've been threatening the West so much, when are you going to actually do it?"
No country will be able to provide 300 Leopard tanks and keep them up and running on their own, not Poland, not Germany nor anyone else. Thats why I said a coalition needs to form and provide the tanks, the training, the ammunition and the spare parts.
This list is not 100% accurate but it gives you a good picture of what is available in each country, keep in mind that these tanks are a major part of each countries defense capabilty so no one is going to give up a major part of their stock.
The Bundeswehr has 19 active 2A4, used to simulate enemies in combat training. There is a rumour that these could be send quite quickly because they are not part of the active duty inventory/planning.No country will be able to provide 300 Leopard tanks and keep them up and running on their own, not Poland, not Germany nor anyone else. Thats why I said a coalition needs to form and provide the tanks, the training, the ammunition and the spare parts.
This list is not 100% accurate but it gives you a good picture of what is available in each country, keep in mind that these tanks are a major part of each countries defense capabilty so no one is going to give up a major part of their stock.
No country will be able to provide 300 Leopard tanks and keep them up and running on their own, not Poland, not Germany nor anyone else. Thats why I said a coalition needs to form and provide the tanks, the training, the ammunition and the spare parts.
This list is not 100% accurate but it gives you a good picture of what is available in each country, keep in mind that these tanks are a major part of each countries defense capabilty so no one is going to give up a major part of their stock.
Yes, true.
But when talking about "major part of each countries defense capability", we should keep in mind that most of these countries have zero defense needs at this moment. Nobody is going to invade Spain, or Germany, or Canada. Their defense capabilities are needed in Ukraine, that's where the common defense is today. The best defense for Spain or Germany is to make sure that Ukraine wins.
Apologies if posted already
That's oversimplifying the reality. No NATO or EU member should send all it's capabilities to Ukraine because the borders need to be defended. We need a strong military presence in the Baltic states or Poland, and that's why German troops are stationed there. And they need to be fully trained and operational. That's impossible if you don't have enough equipment at home.
It is not about overestimating the Russians. It is about the attrition war that everyone talked about which concerns me. The UKR does not have much of advantage in that especially if the "West" started becoming disinterested in long term.
I said that they stabilized their line AFTER they lost those and gained some (minimal) grounds. It does not matter how much they are losing which they don't care but it has big impact on the UKR forces as well.
Last edited:
No one will call it their victory for that alone. But, what I'm trying to emphasize here is that those frontal assaults are also wasting UKR combat capability, and they can't compete in terms of troop losses with the Russians. People keep focusing on the Russian losses with exaggerated numbers while ignoring the fact that the UKR is suffering a lot for itself, which is a concern for this whole war and limits their own counteroffensives elsewhere. There are noises coming from the U.S. that they should change their tactics because it is becoming a bit ridiculous.
Also, there is an article on CNN about how UKR found the Wagner army of convicts not as easy to fight against as people thought.
Last edited:
Twitter translate:
"I don't see a diplomatic coup by Scholz here, but rather the USA throwing a life preserver, grudgingly, to pull the chancellor out of the self-made trap of their own dogmas. I think Germany will also get a receipt for this."
"I don't see a diplomatic coup by Scholz here, but rather the USA throwing a life preserver, grudgingly, to pull the chancellor out of the self-made trap of their own dogmas. I think Germany will also get a receipt for this."
UKR is fighting for its existence. The Russian forces are fighting an imperialist war of conquest and are composed of ethnic minorities, those too poor to get a medical certificate plus mercenaries. This is not WWII and “Russians” (most of whom are not from the heartland) will have limited appetite to run into machine guns. Once the next wave of Western armaments arrive, the recent small gains made by Russian banzai charges will be reversed.
We don't know that yet though. But the support obviously has to continue to increase Ukraine's odds.
Obviously, and they need to come a bit faster. Otherwise, there is a risk that UKR (and the 'West') will get some kind of fatigue soon, fighting for its existence or not.
I think we can assume Russians are not as fired up as in WWII. They have not been attacked and I assume their enthusiasm to advance into gunfire is limited. Give Ukraine the right artillery and tanks and i believe they can fight back the imperialist attacks.
I mean, no. This obviously won't happen.
There will be valuable intelligence coming from all this recent heavy weaponry. Almost none of it has fought against a modern enemy or in this environment before and all the countries providing it will be looking to see how it performs.
A vote passed today in Switzerland but still needs to be ratified by parliament apparently. Would not break their neutrality rules as arms would go via 3rd countries.
Sending Abrams into Ukraine is huge. Clearing gearing up Ukraine ready for a counter offensive in late Spring.
Norway can give a maximum of 8 tanks, so not exactly a dragon's hoard. Though this probably accelerates the process of buying new tanks, which was put on hold after some parts of the military thought maybe the tank isn't the best possible use of money for the modern defence of Norway.
It will if both sides are locked in a stalemated battle of attrition. It is why the momentum is important, and it is why the "West" is providing more weapons to the UKR to initiate soon. They need "Kharkiv counter-offensive success" to convince their people more than "Bakhmut's defense is holding but has been in an extremely difficult condition for months."
It was not too long ago that some noises were coming from the "West" to put pressure on the UKR to negotiate. Only Zelensky's visit to the U.S. Congress kind of shut it down, with the U.S. supporting and pushing others to provide more weapons. And everyone knows that the United States' continued support is heavily dependent on the 2024 election. At least, nothing is certain after this year with the GOP controlling the house.
Abrams has definitely fought against T-72s. And it cleaned feckin house
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Medina_Ridge
So the Americans (with some British help) destroyed 160 Iraqi tanks, including T72s, while losing one Bradley. In the second battle, they took out 186 Iraqi tanks to 4 losses.
Obviously, it's not just the tanks that determined this outcome, but, if the Ukrainians can be even half as effective as the Americans were, they'll be in good shape.
There is one past battle that the Ukrainians can draw inspiration from since it is about how a smaller tank force held the line against a much bigger attacking force, which was drilled by the Soviet/Russian doctrine.
The Valley of Tears (1973)
The first task for the Ukrainians will be to withstand what the Russians will throw at them (expectedly) soon. If that step is accomplished, then the Ukrainians can think about moving armored forces forward. Considering that the Syrians lost between 260 and 300 Syrian T-55s/T-64s compared to 60-80 Israeli Centurion tanks lost back then, I think we can expect the tank casualty ratio will be much more favorable for the Ukrainians in a similar context because of the more recent Western technology as well.
Last edited:
But maybe then russia will go full force on air superiority capabilties taking more risks.
Then tanks will be worthless
Also, all this iraquis tabks pr0bably they were totaled by not american tanks
Then tanks will be worthless
Also, all this iraquis tabks pr0bably they were totaled by not american tanks
Americans also had air superiority though, something Ukraine doesn't have. The tanks by themselves can be defeated if not used properly.
You're kidding yourself. Russia hasn't deployed shit to try attaining air superiority in several months.
I see the scenario of the Valley of Tears repeating because it's closer to the current context, where it's down to tanks vs. tans because neither side has a form of air superiority. The quality of the equipment and the crews' training will matter here, but I think Ukraine will be in a position to succeed just like the Israelis did.