NPR

Hellraiser wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 11:48 am

tabascoboy wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 2:59 pm It comes down to how much we outside UA want to invest in their success through military action, or waiting and hoping for a change in leadership and sanctions hitting hard enough to result in a full RU retreat with an end to imperial ambitions long term and lasting peace. We seem to be in some sort of middle ground at the moment but edging more towards the former.

OPINION:

Although my views may differ from those of some government officials, I'd like to express some cautionary thoughts regarding the upcoming offensive.

While I remain hopeful and committed to achieving victory, I believe it's important to temper our expectations and avoid the assumption that the war will end quickly as a result of one counter-offensive. A realistic approach that takes into account the challenges that we might face.

Even though Ukraine has received substantial support from the West, it's still only enough to sustain few large offensives. Even if Ukraine successfully clears the entire southern region, it won't necessarily resolve the ongoing issues with Donbas or Crimea. The fall of one area doesn't guarantee the fall of the other.

It's important to recognize that the Russian forces are actively preparing for the upcoming counter-offensive, and we shouldn't underestimate their capabilities.

Rather than making optimistic statements about how the war will end soon, it's more realistic to be prepared for a potentially prolonged conflict. We should also communicate this to our allies, so they can adjust their expectations and support accordingly.

While I remain hopeful and committed to achieving victory, I believe it's important to temper our expectations and avoid the assumption that the war will end quickly as a result of this counter-offensive.

Everyone in Ukraine is grateful for the support we receive from the West, including from both governments and society, but I believe that we need much more to finish this war. This goes beyond just the provision of ammunition and military equipment, as important as those are.

In addition to expanding training programs, we must prioritize efforts to improve our command and control structure. This includes sending our reserve officers to the best military schools to enhance their skills. We need to focus not just on improving the command abilities of NCOs and junior officers, but also those at the brigade level and above.

I plan to release a breakdown of the analysis made by Lieutenant Colonel Glen Grant in his article on the necessary changes for our army to remain modern and successful.

Finally, I would rather hear that the war has ended sooner than expected, even if it means admitting that my previous predictions were incorrect, than to hear that my advice could have made a difference if only it had been heeded earlier.

inactionman wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 2:20 pm I'm not looking forward to it per se, as I'm not a complete psycho and tank warfare looks utterly horrific even within the context of war, but I will be interested to see how Challenger 2, Abrams etc fare against the Russian armour.

I know we saw bits of it with the Gulf Wars, but that was an environment with complete air superiority and extensive ground attack capability, against an export user of what I assume were not exactly First Rate Ships Of The Line standard Soviet armour (although I do note that the Russians have used a better part of their more capable kit already)

My interest stems from some talks we were given by a retired Major-General, who talked us through what it was like to be part of the British Army of the Rhine when it looked like hostilities may actually erupt - knowing you're a speedbump who is there just to delay enemy advances. They all assumed, at that time, that the Soviet military was competent, ruthless and well-equipped and they'd not last long once the shooting started.

I know that the I know the end of the cold war predates Challenger 2 (although not Challenger 1), but I'd be interested to see just how effective Russian/Soviet kit is against near-peer NATO kit - not that it'll change much for veterans of the Cold War, but would perhaps at least be in some way satisfying to know.

inactionman wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 2:20 pm I'm not looking forward to it per se, as I'm not a complete psycho and tank warfare looks utterly horrific even within the context of war, but I will be interested to see how Challenger 2, Abrams etc fare against the Russian armour.

I know we saw bits of it with the Gulf Wars, but that was an environment with complete air superiority and extensive ground attack capability, against an export user of what I assume were not exactly First Rate Ships Of The Line standard Soviet armour (although I do note that the Russians have used a better part of their more capable kit already)

My interest stems from some talks we were given by a retired Major-General, who talked us through what it was like to be part of the British Army of the Rhine when it looked like hostilities may actually erupt - knowing you're a speedbump who is there just to delay enemy advances. They all assumed, at that time, that the Soviet military was competent, ruthless and well-equipped and they'd not last long once the shooting started.

I know that the I know the end of the cold war predates Challenger 2 (although not Challenger 1), but I'd be interested to see just how effective Russian/Soviet kit is against near-peer NATO kit - not that it'll change much for veterans of the Cold War, but would perhaps at least be in some way satisfying to know.

laurent wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 2:27 pm

inactionman wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 2:20 pm I'm not looking forward to it per se, as I'm not a complete psycho and tank warfare looks utterly horrific even within the context of war, but I will be interested to see how Challenger 2, Abrams etc fare against the Russian armour.

I know we saw bits of it with the Gulf Wars, but that was an environment with complete air superiority and extensive ground attack capability, against an export user of what I assume were not exactly First Rate Ships Of The Line standard Soviet armour (although I do note that the Russians have used a better part of their more capable kit already)

My interest stems from some talks we were given by a retired Major-General, who talked us through what it was like to be part of the British Army of the Rhine when it looked like hostilities may actually erupt - knowing you're a speedbump who is there just to delay enemy advances. They all assumed, at that time, that the Soviet military was competent, ruthless and well-equipped and they'd not last long once the shooting started.

I know that the I know the end of the cold war predates Challenger 2 (although not Challenger 1), but I'd be interested to see just how effective Russian/Soviet kit is against near-peer NATO kit - not that it'll change much for veterans of the Cold War, but would perhaps at least be in some way satisfying to know.

Keep in mind the AMX 10 and AMX 30 were quite effective during Gulfwar mkI and the AMX30 was a tin can with a nice gun (AMX 10 is a tin can with a low pressure 105 gun).

the challenger II is likely the worse modern western tank being sent (a pity no Leclerc are sent as it is probably the best one out there).

fishfoodie wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 2:29 pm

inactionman wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 2:20 pm I'm not looking forward to it per se, as I'm not a complete psycho and tank warfare looks utterly horrific even within the context of war, but I will be interested to see how Challenger 2, Abrams etc fare against the Russian armour.

I know we saw bits of it with the Gulf Wars, but that was an environment with complete air superiority and extensive ground attack capability, against an export user of what I assume were not exactly First Rate Ships Of The Line standard Soviet armour (although I do note that the Russians have used a better part of their more capable kit already)

My interest stems from some talks we were given by a retired Major-General, who talked us through what it was like to be part of the British Army of the Rhine when it looked like hostilities may actually erupt - knowing you're a speedbump who is there just to delay enemy advances. They all assumed, at that time, that the Soviet military was competent, ruthless and well-equipped and they'd not last long once the shooting started.

I know that the I know the end of the cold war predates Challenger 2 (although not Challenger 1), but I'd be interested to see just how effective Russian/Soviet kit is against near-peer NATO kit - not that it'll change much for veterans of the Cold War, but would perhaps at least be in some way satisfying to know.

Didn't a Kuwaiti tank commander do a bit of a Wittmann on the Iraqi tanks when they invaded ?

I think the count was something like 11 kills before he had to withdraw.

inactionman wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:05 pm

fishfoodie wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 2:29 pm

inactionman wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 2:20 pm I'm not looking forward to it per se, as I'm not a complete psycho and tank warfare looks utterly horrific even within the context of war, but I will be interested to see how Challenger 2, Abrams etc fare against the Russian armour.

I know we saw bits of it with the Gulf Wars, but that was an environment with complete air superiority and extensive ground attack capability, against an export user of what I assume were not exactly First Rate Ships Of The Line standard Soviet armour (although I do note that the Russians have used a better part of their more capable kit already)

My interest stems from some talks we were given by a retired Major-General, who talked us through what it was like to be part of the British Army of the Rhine when it looked like hostilities may actually erupt - knowing you're a speedbump who is there just to delay enemy advances. They all assumed, at that time, that the Soviet military was competent, ruthless and well-equipped and they'd not last long once the shooting started.

I know that the I know the end of the cold war predates Challenger 2 (although not Challenger 1), but I'd be interested to see just how effective Russian/Soviet kit is against near-peer NATO kit - not that it'll change much for veterans of the Cold War, but would perhaps at least be in some way satisfying to know.

Didn't a Kuwaiti tank commander do a bit of a Wittmann on the Iraqi tanks when they invaded ?

I think the count was something like 11 kills before he had to withdraw.

Would that have ben in a Chieftain? I'll have a dig, they're definitely Cold War era.

The last battle for the Chieftain was during the Battle of the Bridges (also known as the Battle of Jal al Atraf) on August 2nd during the Invasion of Kuwait, and was the Chieftain's crowning achievement on the battlefield. Three Companies of Kuwaiti Army Chieftains (36 tanks in total) of the 35th Armored Brigade joined the defenses overlooking the bridges near the junction where the Sixth Ring Road meets Highway 70, some 25 km west of Al Jahra. At 6:45 hours, these forces engaged leading elements of the Iraqi Republican Guard, from the 1st "Hammurabi" Armored Division. The Kuwaitis inflicted heavy losses on the elite Iraqi Republican Guard (IRG) forces, destroying numerous armored vehicles, and even a self-propelled howitzer being transported on a trailer. The first wave withdrew before it could suffer crippling losses, and was followed by the leading elements of the 2nd "Al-Medina" Armored Division, another IRG formation, which more or less had the same result. Due to the closed terrain, contact wasn't made between the opposing armies past about 1.5km, and in a few instances tanks fired on one another at ranges as close as 400m. This holding action was discontinued later that day, simply because the Kuwaitis were running out of ammunition. By the end of the battle, the only losses to the Chieftains had been two tanks abandoned and scuttled due to mechanical breakdowns, while the entire Kuwaiti defense had suffered only 24 casualties. The number of Iraqi casualties has never been verified, but they lost some 200 armored vehicles, including at least 30 tanks. Among the heavy armor vanquished by the Chieftain were T-72M1s (or possibly the much cruder Asad Babils), a type of tank that had NATO convinced for 20 years that the Chieftain would be helpless against.

laurent wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 2:27 pm

inactionman wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 2:20 pm I'm not looking forward to it per se, as I'm not a complete psycho and tank warfare looks utterly horrific even within the context of war, but I will be interested to see how Challenger 2, Abrams etc fare against the Russian armour.

I know we saw bits of it with the Gulf Wars, but that was an environment with complete air superiority and extensive ground attack capability, against an export user of what I assume were not exactly First Rate Ships Of The Line standard Soviet armour (although I do note that the Russians have used a better part of their more capable kit already)

My interest stems from some talks we were given by a retired Major-General, who talked us through what it was like to be part of the British Army of the Rhine when it looked like hostilities may actually erupt - knowing you're a speedbump who is there just to delay enemy advances. They all assumed, at that time, that the Soviet military was competent, ruthless and well-equipped and they'd not last long once the shooting started.

I know that the I know the end of the cold war predates Challenger 2 (although not Challenger 1), but I'd be interested to see just how effective Russian/Soviet kit is against near-peer NATO kit - not that it'll change much for veterans of the Cold War, but would perhaps at least be in some way satisfying to know.

Keep in mind the AMX 10 and AMX 30 were quite effective during Gulfwar mkI and the AMX30 was a tin can with a nice gun (AMX 10 is a tin can with a low pressure 105 gun).

the challenger II is likely the worse modern western tank being sent (a pity no Leclerc are sent as it is probably the best one out there).

inactionman wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:02 pm

laurent wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 2:27 pm

inactionman wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 2:20 pm I'm not looking forward to it per se, as I'm not a complete psycho and tank warfare looks utterly horrific even within the context of war, but I will be interested to see how Challenger 2, Abrams etc fare against the Russian armour.

I know we saw bits of it with the Gulf Wars, but that was an environment with complete air superiority and extensive ground attack capability, against an export user of what I assume were not exactly First Rate Ships Of The Line standard Soviet armour (although I do note that the Russians have used a better part of their more capable kit already)

My interest stems from some talks we were given by a retired Major-General, who talked us through what it was like to be part of the British Army of the Rhine when it looked like hostilities may actually erupt - knowing you're a speedbump who is there just to delay enemy advances. They all assumed, at that time, that the Soviet military was competent, ruthless and well-equipped and they'd not last long once the shooting started.

I know that the I know the end of the cold war predates Challenger 2 (although not Challenger 1), but I'd be interested to see just how effective Russian/Soviet kit is against near-peer NATO kit - not that it'll change much for veterans of the Cold War, but would perhaps at least be in some way satisfying to know.

Keep in mind the AMX 10 and AMX 30 were quite effective during Gulfwar mkI and the AMX30 was a tin can with a nice gun (AMX 10 is a tin can with a low pressure 105 gun).

the challenger II is likely the worse modern western tank being sent (a pity no Leclerc are sent as it is probably the best one out there).

Not really, it's just designed to different doctrine - a high degree of protection which compromises agility, whereas the likes of Leclerc and Leopard are more mobile (and Leclerc has an autoloader which has pros and cons in and of itself) but correspondingly less well protected.

Horses/horseguards for courses.

laurent wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:53 pm

inactionman wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:02 pm

laurent wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 2:27 pm
Keep in mind the AMX 10 and AMX 30 were quite effective during Gulfwar mkI and the AMX30 was a tin can with a nice gun (AMX 10 is a tin can with a low pressure 105 gun).

the challenger II is likely the worse modern western tank being sent (a pity no Leclerc are sent as it is probably the best one out there).

Not really, it's just designed to different doctrine - a high degree of protection which compromises agility, whereas the likes of Leclerc and Leopard are more mobile (and Leclerc has an autoloader which has pros and cons in and of itself) but correspondingly less well protected.

Horses/horseguards for courses.

The gun is also a problem

inactionman wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 2:20 pm I'm not looking forward to it per se, as I'm not a complete psycho and tank warfare looks utterly horrific even within the context of war, but I will be interested to see how Challenger 2, Abrams etc fare against the Russian armour.

I know we saw bits of it with the Gulf Wars, but that was an environment with complete air superiority and extensive ground attack capability, against an export user of what I assume were not exactly First Rate Ships Of The Line standard Soviet armour (although I do note that the Russians have used a better part of their more capable kit already)

My interest stems from some talks we were given by a retired Major-General, who talked us through what it was like to be part of the British Army of the Rhine when it looked like hostilities may actually erupt - knowing you're a speedbump who is there just to delay enemy advances. They all assumed, at that time, that the Soviet military was competent, ruthless and well-equipped and they'd not last long once the shooting started.

I know that the I know the end of the cold war predates Challenger 2 (although not Challenger 1), but I'd be interested to see just how effective Russian/Soviet kit is against near-peer NATO kit - not that it'll change much for veterans of the Cold War, but would perhaps at least be in some way satisfying to know.

inactionman wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:06 pm

laurent wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:53 pm

inactionman wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:02 pm

Not really, it's just designed to different doctrine - a high degree of protection which compromises agility, whereas the likes of Leclerc and Leopard are more mobile (and Leclerc has an autoloader which has pros and cons in and of itself) but correspondingly less well protected.

Horses/horseguards for courses.

The gun is also a problem

The gun is perfectly fine, it's ammunition interoperability that is the issue. This is one of the aspects that worried a few commentators when deploying CR2 to Ukraine, as it does require specific rounds for the rifled gun, but they're operating such a broad, wild and wacky set of equipment that I'm sure they'll make it work.

The CR3 upgrade does/will (I believe) replace the guns with smoothbores to align with standard NATO 120mm munitions.