Russia on brink of ... NOPE! Russia INVADES Ukraine!

Page 913 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,604
34,389
136
Umm, I'm pretty sure Germany doesn't have any (legal) basis at all to stop other countries from training whoever they want on the Leopard - the restrictions are against re-export of the tanks.

Likely not but the messaging is only headed in one direction. I also wouldn't be broken up if Polish Leopards mysteriously disappeared from training grounds while the Pole instructors were out grabbing a beer.

Alternative scheme at this point might be buying retired Challenger 1s from Jordan (edit: and/or Oman) and quick rehabbing them in Czechia.
 
Last edited:

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,610
3,453
136
A likely related article openly speaking of the Russian military buildup, once again in 3 directions surrounding Ukraine.
Russia's 2023 invasion may be larger than the 2022 invasion.
Everything east of the Dnippro is threatened with extermination and ethnic cleansing into Russian hands.

We must have warned the Ukrainians that the war is about to escalate wildly.

Putin’s "Secret" Attack Plan Would Be Ukrainian Nightmare

@kage69 How many dead Ukrainians does it take before you would agree with me, that we have not done enough?
It is not warmongering to want Ukraine to win at its own defense. For Ukraine to survive this invasion and keep its people safe. Or for us to do EVERYTHING possible to ensure that outcome. For us to preserve life to the fullest extent.

Thus far WE HAVE FAILED to do that, and we should be deeply ashamed for our failure to stand for life.

ATACMS
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,542
7,595
136
Honest question (not making any rhetorical point) but what do the Russians have left with which to attack? I thought they were already reduced to digging out T62s from storage?

And I honestly do not know what they have for equipment. I just know that they appear to be not just doubling down on the invasion, but they transitioned to a war time economy and are thrusting their entire existence into this campaign. Such is the warning I expect we gave Ukraine, as the news channels are picking up on.

CIA director briefed Zelensky on US expectations for Russia’s battlefield planning
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
5,435
1,639
136
Yes, it is hard for me to understand how an offensive last year that involved Russia's best trained and equipped troops failed but now a new attack from conscripted troops with way, way worse equipment (if any) would succeed.

Everything else aside how would they hope to supply this? They couldn't supply their original force.

This is just typical how Russians do a war. They keep throwing conscript soldiers at the enemy until they either run out of soldiers or they breakthrough.
Russia has forgotten that their demographics of young men in Russia available for conscription isn't as deep and available as it was in prior decades. Russia had a huge demographics program and this War is going to make it a catastrophic problem for them. At this point we are probably witnessing the end of Russia as a nation.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,760
906
126
Yes, it is hard for me to understand how an offensive last year that involved Russia's best trained and equipped troops failed but now a new attack from conscripted troops with way, way worse equipment (if any) would succeed.

Everything else aside how would they hope to supply this? They couldn't supply their original force.
If I was Russia and I had a 500k conscript army to work with. I would create a wide front (Belarus to Crimea) to have the defenders spread out. Then push at the weakened defense where I wanted land (Donbas most likely) with a core of what's left of the professional army. Take what I could before the defenders rallied and then just hold.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,851
38,071
136
@kage69 How many dead Ukrainians does it take before you would agree with me, that we have not done enough?
It is not warmongering to want Ukraine to win at its own defense. For Ukraine to survive this invasion and keep its people safe. Or for us to do EVERYTHING possible to ensure that outcome. For us to preserve life to the fullest extent.

Thus far WE HAVE FAILED to do that, and we should be deeply ashamed for our failure to stand for life.


"We" again is it? This is so sad. Seriously, do you share your account with someone else, or maybe just drink a lot before you post? The inability to grasp some very simple concepts here is unfortunate, it's almost like you don't remember the many times this has been covered. In this thread. To you. Repeatedly.

I'm not interesting in your drama, queen.

You are still pretending false attribution is an argument, still ignoring your only ways to refute my points. You were asked to explain how Americans killing Russians, which you advocate, wasn't World War III. It was implied you should explain how World War III helps the defense of Ukraine. Until you can address those questions, I don't give a fuck what you find shameful. All I'm hearing from you is idealistic bullshit, with no understanding of what real war is. Yet here you are, again, crying about Americans not dying for a cause you yourself won't fight for. Spare us your tears liar, or have you finally located any posts of mine that support this fiction of me not wanting Ukrainian victory?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: eikelbijter

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,604
34,389
136
Is the Leopard better than the Abrams?


The 2A7 is probably about on par though I have some questions about the armor. There are not many of these out in the world right now either. Most countries have older standard A4s and A5s plus some locally upgraded models. The best mass available tank is going to be the M1A2 SEPv3 right now. The K2 is impressive if not yet battle tested and only a few hundred made so far.

General Dynamics seems to want to ditch the turbine and move to hybrid diesel systems for their next evolution. This would save a ton of fuel and be simpler to fix.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea and Brovane

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
5,435
1,639
136
Is the Leopard better than the Abrams?


It depends because their is so many different variants of the Leopard 2 and the Abrams tanks. The latest versions are fairly evenly matched in hardware. However what the US equipment going for it is the digital integration with all the other US hardware that allows US hardware from the Bradley's, Abrams to the Apache's to all fight together as a unit which gives the US a force multiplier effect. The US military doesn't fight fair and doesn't fight alone, they bring friends with them.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,851
38,071
136
In the event such a large scale attack appeared imminent the US and western allies could supply Kyiv with substantial amounts of previously withheld items like M26 rockets and 155mm DPICM.

An M864 shell spit out of a 52 caliber gun would likely have a range around 40km and would be extraordinarily bad news for an attacking force.

An M864 out of a 52 cal can hit +50km I think. Big ol chamber yeah, but Excalibur has that cool gas generator in the base, so it bleeds gas into the wake to kill turbulence and drops that base drag. Hello extra range. Now the newer ones have semi active laser targeting for moving targets. Aw yeah, accurate to under 2m. Catch, Yuri.

I just hope they have all the air burst munitions they need. Russia needs to learn a lesson on human waves the way the Chinese and NKs did in the 50s.
 
Last edited:

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,851
38,071
136
It depends because their is so many different variants of the Leopard 2 and the Abrams tanks. The latest versions are fairly evenly matched in hardware. However what the US equipment going for it is the digital integration with all the other US hardware that allows US hardware from the Bradley's, Abrams to the Apache's to all fight together as a unit which gives the US a force multiplier effect. The US military doesn't fight fair and doesn't fight alone, they bring friends with them.


All true. Combined arms aside though, if I had to pick one to ride into a fight, I'd still go with the Abrams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,217
9,254
146
Why can't we just send 2-3 Abrams, calling Germany's bluff/giving them the political cover they think they need?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,100
136
It depends because their is so many different variants of the Leopard 2 and the Abrams tanks. The latest versions are fairly evenly matched in hardware. However what the US equipment going for it is the digital integration with all the other US hardware that allows US hardware from the Bradley's, Abrams to the Apache's to all fight together as a unit which gives the US a force multiplier effect. The US military doesn't fight fair and doesn't fight alone, they bring friends with them.

Pretty sure the list was basing it off whatever is the best version of each tank right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

Dave_5k

Golden Member
May 23, 2017
1,641
3,180
136
It makes a lot of sense to standardize Ukraine on one new western tank that is widely available.

If Germany is going to block German tanks which would be the most logical widely available option (exactly who else is Germany/Europe going to need to deter from invading in a land war... other than Russia?), lets start training them up on the upgraded M1A2 SEP v3 and begin deploying several battalions to Poland for handover. Its not like we're going to invade China with them anyway, and Biden only has another 8 months of lend-lease to transfer equipment to Ukraine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

rommelrommel

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2002
4,388
3,118
146
This is just typical how Russians do a war. They keep throwing conscript soldiers at the enemy until they either run out of soldiers or they breakthrough.
Russia has forgotten that their demographics of young men in Russia available for conscription isn't as deep and available as it was in prior decades. Russia had a huge demographics program and this War is going to make it a catastrophic problem for them. At this point we are probably witnessing the end of Russia as a nation.

While they did have conscription in WW2, in 1944/1945 they had really good doctrine, combined arms deployment better than anyone arguably, and were again arguably the masters of large scale manoeuvre warfare. What this war really is, is a regression to Imperial Russian tactics/strategy.

If they had the military that they thought they had and it was properly employed the map would look a lot different now. A proper thrust on the four oblasts they purport to have annexed very well may have succeeded, along with taking the coast right through to Transnistria.
 
Last edited:

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
10,319
6,958
136

Read somewhere a while ago that Trumpanzees have been invaluable to Russia as they came over with drone equipment and military tactics.

I think it was the Russkies bragging Ukraine isn't the only who has surveillance drones or something thanks to them.

Don't think they're actual video links other than surveillance video as they'd be in big trouble.
 

Dave_5k

Golden Member
May 23, 2017
1,641
3,180
136
Read somewhere a while ago that Trumpanzees have been invaluable to Russia as they came over with drone equipment and military tactics.

I think it was the Russkies bragging Ukraine isn't the only who has surveillance drones or something thanks to them.

Don't think they're actual video links other than surveillance video as they'd be in big trouble.
Well, Russia's getting far more help from its planted traitors still in the West, most notably:
- Tucker Carlson (who nearly single handedly has turned the US Republican party into a pro-Russia / anti-Ukraine party), with a moderate assist from:
- Michael Flynn (who supported Trump's conversion to the religion of all in love of Putin-ism, and planted strong seeds for Tucker to work from)
- Gerhard Schröder and his various lobbying companies and associated bought politicians (although somewhat ostracized now, his legacy still weakens and slows support for Ukraine aid)
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
5,435
1,639
136
Pretty sure the list was basing it off whatever is the best version of each tank right now.

I kind of hate those lists because all they do is match tank versus tank. Tanks really don't fight alone, especially US tanks. They fight in groups with other components of the US army. The US military does very well, better than any one else is fighting together combined arms style as a team.

Kind of like those lists that compare a F-16 or F-15 etc. versus another jet. Well US jets usually fight as groups and they usually have a AWACS up supporting them. A AWACS aircraft is a huge force multiplier for any air force. Those lists really don't take into account if a group of Jets has AWACS supports and the other group doesn't.