War in Ukraine

#52,151
#52,151
One of the sources I like to keep tabs on says Russia might be preparing for another big air/missile campaign here shortly. They are moving around a lot of air assets including bombers. One thought is with the bad ground, the Russians want to keep the pressure on however they can, and crippling more civilian systems right before winter will have a big ROI. They could also be hoping to shoot the moon again and hope that another Ukrainian missile lands in NATO territory, to create a divide.

The alternatives he offers is them making big movements pre winter so they can respond faster if they are attacked, where the winter weather would otherwise slow them down.

Other is just pre-setting their big 2023 offensive, so that future movements wouldnt give away an attack window. And this way they can get ammo/fuel/parts in place to avoid a rush on their stretched logistics when the offensive actually launches.
 
#52,152
#52,152
Russian KIAs ramping up bigly.

Seems the prisoner cannon fodder are literally just being sent to death in droves.

Yes, the numbers are inflated - who knows... maybe 50%. But the trend is clear.

Plus, pretty likely there's a new Ukrainian offensive coming once the ground freezes.

fipqjsvtic3a1.jpg
 
#52,153
#52,153
Ukraine needs tanks, and the west should supply them. They could finish off Putin and Russia | Frank Ledwidge

So 1/3 of our Abrams tanks should go to Ukraine? Interesting. I thought you guys said the Ukrainians were winning?

Ukraine has repeatedly asked for more and better armour to support its campaigns to retake occupied territory. The US M1 Abrams tank is battle-tested and a generation ahead of anything remaining in Russia’s arsenal. Of the 3,000 or so the US has in reserve storage, the Ukrainians would need far fewer than 1,000 to equip their new brigades. The same considerations apply to the release of up to 2,000 equally battle-proven Bradley armoured personnel carriers to protect Ukrainian infantry.
Click to expand...


Many months? Just how much time does this guy think Kyiv has?

There is no time for delay: it will take many months to supply this essential equipment and to train troops to use and maintain it. Stepping up weapons supply would indicate that the US has opened the arsenal of democracy with clear intent for victory.

Most important, it would avoid an long drawn-out, bloody conflict with absolutely no guarantee of Ukrainian success. Getting this right will shorten the war and save thousands of Ukrainian – and incidentally Russian – lives.
Click to expand...
 
#52,157
#52,157
Rasputin_Vol said:
Ukraine needs tanks, and the west should supply them. They could finish off Putin and Russia | Frank Ledwidge

So 1/3 of our Abrams tanks should go to Ukraine? Interesting. I thought you guys said the Ukrainians were winning?




Many months? Just how much time does this guy think Kyiv has?
Click to expand...
So wait, supplying new tanks is a sign of losing, but supplying new troops is a sign of winning?

War requires men and materials, winning or losing. For some reason, no matter how often I point it out, you guys ignore it. As if winning means you never lose anything, nothing breaks down, and nothing goes wrong. You watch to many movies.

And that would be 1/3 of our Abrams in STORAGE. Not 1/3 of all our Abrams. And not really sure why this is a shock seeing as how Russia had to dust off their t-62s in storage. I still wouldnt give them any, and I doubt this guy has a lot of clout to make it happen. You are having to dig deep to find things to trigger you today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MG1968 and tvolsfan
#52,158
#52,158
LouderVol said:
So wait, supplying new tanks is a sign of losing, but supplying new troops is a sign of winning?

War requires men and materials, winning or losing. For some reason, no matter how often I point it out, you guys ignore it. As if winning means you never lose anything, nothing breaks down, and nothing goes wrong. You watch to many movies.

And that would be 1/3 of our Abrams in STORAGE. Not 1/3 of all our Abrams. And not really sure why this is a shock seeing as how Russia had to dust off their t-62s in storage. I still wouldnt give them any, and I doubt this guy has a lot of clout to make it happen. You are having to dig deep to find things to trigger you today.
Click to expand...

I for one would be happy to see those old Abrams get put into service for the purpose for which they were designed. Killin' Ruskies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, NorthDallas40 and Hunerwadel
#52,159
#52,159
Fi8_-XVXgAImhXQ
 
#52,160
#52,160
Septic said:
I for one would be happy to see those old Abrams get put into service for the purpose for which they were designed. Killin' Ruskies.
Click to expand...
I would only support SELLING whatever our military reliably think they dont need.

The funny part is Ukraine's demand is having a knock on effect for the rest of the world. Without Russias invasion it probably wouldnt be a big deal to give Ukraine 1000 of our Abrams. What do we need them for? Now that the Ruskies are stomping around? Maybe those Abrams are a bit more of a strategic assets worth keeping.
 
#52,161
#52,161
LouderVol said:
And that would be 1/3 of our Abrams in STORAGE. Not 1/3 of all our Abrams. And not really sure why this is a shock seeing as how Russia had to dust off their t-62s in storage. I still wouldnt give them any, and I doubt this guy has a lot of clout to make it happen. You are having to dig deep to find things to trigger you today.
Click to expand...
Still a significant number.

In any event, who is going to drive these tanks? Who is trained to operate and maintain them? The supply chains needed to keep them running? Yeah, we'll be talking about these Abrams coming at the same time we get those Warthogs and F-16s and Mig-29s.
 
#52,162
#52,162
Rasputin_Vol said:
Still a significant number.

In any event, who is going to drive these tanks? Who is trained to operate and maintain them? The supply chains needed to keep them running? Yeah, we'll be talking about these Abrams coming at the same time we get those Warthogs and F-16s and Mig-29s.
Click to expand...
You mean now that you found 1 rando on the internet that said something that aligns with your preconceived notions, it means it's real? You guys have been digging deeper and deeper to find this "obvious western bs" to add to your list.

You are just straw manning because you cant find any actual arguments.

And I am not even sure why you are making these arguments. First these typically arent official channels saying the US/west will give whatever. Usually you find some columnist or freshman Representative talking about what we should do, vs what we are going to do. Second it just doesnt match your narrative. If we wanted to break the russians and ukraine was our puppet we would give them those systems. If we wanted an endless tarpit, why bring in more advanced equipment? Or why provide them if it just means more logistical issues, which would make it more likely Ukraine loses than keeping things on hold.

You guys play the weirdest word games of absolutism vs relativism, the only consistency is to ever make the west look bad rather than looking at things objectively.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128, tvolsfan and NorthDallas40
#52,163
#52,163
LouderVol said:
So wait, supplying new tanks is a sign of losing, but supplying new troops is a sign of winning?

War requires men and materials, winning or losing. For some reason, no matter how often I point it out, you guys ignore it. As if winning means you never lose anything, nothing breaks down, and nothing goes wrong. You watch to many movies.

And that would be 1/3 of our Abrams in STORAGE. Not 1/3 of all our Abrams. And not really sure why this is a shock seeing as how Russia had to dust off their t-62s in storage. I still wouldnt give them any, and I doubt this guy has a lot of clout to make it happen. You are having to dig deep to find things to trigger you today.
Click to expand...
From what I understand of the Abrams in storage is they are older versions and not refitted to the current A1 or A2 variants which are the only operational versions.

M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank | Military-Today.com

Currently the M1 Abrams main battle tank is no longer in operational service with the US military and a number of these tanks were upgraded to the M1A2 standard. US Army has over 2 300 of these tanks in reserve storage. The original M1 was never exported
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#52,164
#52,164
Rasputin_Vol said:
Still a significant number.

In any event, who is going to drive these tanks? Who is trained to operate and maintain them? The supply chains needed to keep them running? Yeah, we'll be talking about these Abrams coming at the same time we get those Warthogs and F-16s and Mig-29s.
Click to expand...

I suspect we (NATO countries) have been training Ukranian tank crews and working out logistics for months. War planners don't just think in the here and now.
 
#52,165
#52,165
Hunerwadel said:
I suspect we (NATO countries) have been training Ukranian tank crews and working out logistics for months. War planners don't just think in the here and now.
Click to expand...
Yep. I gotta believe we've been training Ukrainians on potentially-donated arms since the beginning of the war.
 
#52,169
#52,169
NorthDallas40 said:
From what I understand of the Abrams in storage is they are older versions and not refitted to the current A1 or A2 variants which are the only operational versions.

M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank | Military-Today.com

Currently the M1 Abrams main battle tank is no longer in operational service with the US military and a number of these tanks were upgraded to the M1A2 standard. US Army has over 2 300 of these tanks in reserve storage. The original M1 was never exported
Click to expand...

You ever watch them tear those things down at Anniston AD? They do total overhauls. neat stuff.
 
#52,170
#52,170
Orangeburst said:
You ever watch them tear those things down at Anniston AD? They do total overhauls. neat stuff.
Click to expand...
Never watched a video but yeah after each lengthy deployment they are sent to depot for R&M and basically rebuilt. An expensive process but that’s how we keep machines around for 30+ years that see severe use like they do
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#52,171
#52,171
NorthDallas40 said:
Never watched a video but yeah after each lengthy deployment they are sent to depot for R&M and basically rebuilt. An expensive process but that’s how we keep machines around for 30+ years that see severe use like they do
Click to expand...

Check it out on youtoobie. They strip it down the the bare hull.
I dont even think they produce new Abrams do they?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top