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

Page 896 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
16,601
11,410
136
I like that. Definitely applies.

Yes a lot like another crowd we know.

Yeah some of the interesting viewpoints from the start of the thread..

The media whores are already out selling the war lie, non-stop 24/7. Just like back in early 2000s with Afghanistan and Iraq. Non-stop 24/7 war propaganda, with the media cheerleading war and destruction. And nothing has changed. The same media whores pushing more war, as usual. Ukraine must be sacrificed to the Western war gods.

Russia is not gonna back off. Sanction them, they don't care anymore. It's going to be Germany who pays a massive price when their gas supplies dwindle. It'll be West who has to pay the price. Germany and Russia were going to get along, make a great deal. But no, Uncle Sam had to throw a wrench in it. War mongers. As always.


I expect the sanctions will be the same as to Iran which have not brought them to their knees and neither ones on Russia will. I expect them then to join with Iran. Russia will not stop anywhere once they start and will end up if they can with the whole of Europe. They have the gas which no one else has because of our enviromentalists so they can do what they want. Whatever sanctions we make will hurt us more.


I still think with all this invading going on, that America needs to take advantage and invade Mexico and take over Mexico making Mexico part of the united states thus ending the illegal immigration problem and allowing every us corporation the right to move their operations and manufacturing plants down to Mexico because Mexico would now be part of the united states. Lets just call it Texas South. Take down that wall, and replace with a red carpet.

ps. I dont even think Mexico has a military. How easy could this be???


I know there's more but this was really the most telling and underrated:

Excellent point. Russian equipment was notoriously under serviced. I specifically recall statements from inspectors that were part of one of the nuke treaties suggesting that most of the missiles wouldn't likely make it out of the silos they were in such bad shape. Rusted to shit, etc.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,114
136
At least Poland and Finland want to send 2s to Ukraine, possibly more countries in Europe who favor also.

Poland for their part probably doesn't want to operate three types of MBT long term so letting go of the 2PLs is fine. Though they still need more deliveries of Abrams and Black Panther before they can surplus a lot of the fleet. A group of countries could supply a meaningful quantity though if everyone gave some. More likely putting pressure on Germany to ok armor transfers from their industry at this point.

Hopefully, Ukraine can get some modern MBTs in the next few months. They really want Abrams, for obvious reasons. But Challenger 2 or Leopard 2s would fit the bill well enough, IMHO. M60A3 would probably be good enough - though improved armor would be helpful (as well as other improvements you pointed out in an earlier post). Listening to a European military analyst, who seemed to be knowledgeable and sober minded, he pointed out that the UA needs about 300 fairly modern MBTs in order to drive their offensive (Deutsche Welle video). Obviously, continuing support from NATO across a broad spectrum of arms and equipment needs to continue as it has been.

If, in fact, Putski is recruiting another 500K soldiers, then Ukraine will need more aid from NATO - unfortunately, we can't put boots on the ground, even in west Ukraine for depot service and training - Russia would go berserk. So many young men are going to die on both sides as Putin keeps upping the ante, such a monumental waste :(. I really wish someone would take this guy out.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,469
47,944
136
Hopefully, Ukraine can get some modern MBTs in the next few months. They really want Abrams, for obvious reasons. But Challenger 2 or Leopard 2s would fit the bill well enough, IMHO. M60A3 would probably be good enough - though improved armor would be helpful (as well as other improvements you pointed out in an earlier post). Listening to a European military analyst, who seemed to be knowledgeable and sober minded, he pointed out that the UA needs about 300 fairly modern MBTs in order to drive their offensive (Deutsche Welle video). Obviously, continuing support from NATO across a broad spectrum of arms and equipment needs to continue as it has been.

If, in fact, Putski is recruiting another 500K soldiers, then Ukraine will need more aid from NATO - unfortunately, we can't put boots on the ground, even in west Ukraine for depot service and training - Russia would go berserk. So many young men are going to die on both sides as Putin keeps upping the ante, such a monumental waste :(. I really wish someone would take this guy out.

I think that Germany should send the nearly 200 Leo 1A5s that are ready for shipment and get KMW cranking on rehabbing hundreds more. Simultaneously M60A3s should be procured in bulk (Greece, Egypt, etc have tons) and the Italians can upgrade them. Ukraine is just physically huge and the war is probably going to last longer than anybody things so stocking them up on potentially well over a thousand reasonably capable tanks is probably the move I'd make and more cost effective. Parts, ammo (no 105mm tank ammo shortage unlike soviet caliber), training, etc not going to be a major problem on either platform.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trenchfoot

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,208
10,495
136

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,513
5,997
136
I think that Germany should send the nearly 200 Leo 1A5s that are ready for shipment and get KMW cranking on rehabbing hundreds more. Simultaneously M60A3s should be procured in bulk (Greece, Egypt, etc have tons) and the Italians can upgrade them. Ukraine is just physically huge and the war is probably going to last longer than anybody things so stocking them up on potentially well over a thousand reasonably capable tanks is probably the move I'd make and more cost effective. Parts, ammo (no 105mm tank ammo shortage unlike soviet caliber), training, etc not going to be a major problem on either platform.

Isn't the protection of the Leopard 1 pretty weak? If I remember rightly it was designed to prioritise speed over armour. And can that 105mm gun defeat Soviet armour? There's a reason why all later tanks used larger guns. Surely we can get something more modern to send to Ukraine.

I think sending Bradleys is a smart move. The TOW missiles are tank killers- they can deploy and support infantry, engage armour or infantry, and are easier to support logistically than the Abrams.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,469
47,944
136
Isn't the protection of the Leopard 1 pretty weak? If I remember rightly it was designed to prioritise speed over armour. And can that 105mm gun defeat Soviet armour? There's a reason why all later tanks used larger guns. Surely we can get something more modern to send to Ukraine.

I think sending Bradleys is a smart move. The TOW missiles are tank killers- they can deploy and support infantry, engage armour or infantry, and are easier to support logistically than the Abrams.

The Ukrainians would immediately cover the things in Kontakt 1 which would boost the protection. The typical complaint about the 105mm gun is that it won’t penetrate the frontal armor on a T-72. I think this is probably less important than a good crew and FCS that puts rounds on target first, likely damaging or disabling the Russian tank. Anyway the tanks and Bradley/Marders should operate together for maximum effect in an offensive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajay

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
26,662
15,967
136
Rogan is a fucking dolt, but Peter Zeihan is not, a quite chilling objective perspective here

 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitek

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,916
10,751
147
Talking head outlines the possible scenarios for Russia using nukes, which range from "not going to happen" to "slight possibility if, if, if . . ." despite our OP calling the interview "chilling."
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,114
136
I think that Germany should send the nearly 200 Leo 1A5s that are ready for shipment and get KMW cranking on rehabbing hundreds more. Simultaneously M60A3s should be procured in bulk (Greece, Egypt, etc have tons) and the Italians can upgrade them. Ukraine is just physically huge and the war is probably going to last longer than anybody things so stocking them up on potentially well over a thousand reasonably capable tanks is probably the move I'd make and more cost effective. Parts, ammo (no 105mm tank ammo shortage unlike soviet caliber), training, etc not going to be a major problem on either platform.
After reviewing info on the Leopard 1A5, it’s definitely a good choice and Germany produced 2,400 of them (Not all A5s). Armor could be better better. Polycarbonate exterior panels can be added to trigger HEAT and other rounds prematurely. Reactive or Chobham armor would be better - maybe KMW has a bolt on solution available - don’t know. Tons of 105 rounds or various types since 105mm is a NATO standard. I think your suggestion of a larger number of these 'lighter' MBTs makes sense. Even with 300 additional MBTs, the UA would need most of them in the two main axes of attack in the east and south. With more tanks and IFVs could create a situation where the UA could 'blitz' some Russian fortified areas (if the UA has the requisite infantry numbers) and the added mobility creates more opportunities for encirclement.

Blah, blah, blah - good catch :).
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,469
47,944
136
After reviewing info on the Leopard 1A5, it’s definitely a good choice and Germany produced 2,400 of them (Not all A5s). Armor could be better better. Polycarbonate exterior panels can be added to trigger HEAT and other rounds prematurely. Reactive or Chobham armor would be better - maybe KMW has a bolt on solution available - don’t know. Tons of 105 rounds or various types since 105mm is a NATO standard. I think your suggestion of a larger number of these 'lighter' MBTs makes sense. Even with 300 additional MBTs, the UA would need most of them in the two main axes of attack in the east and south. With more tanks and IFVs could create a situation where the UA could 'blitz' some Russian fortified areas (if the UA has the requisite infantry numbers) and the added mobility creates more opportunities for encirclement.

Blah, blah, blah - good catch :).

There is likely another thousand suitable hulls for rehabilitation/spares in willing foreign countries too. I think another argument in favor of a much larger fleet is they'd have plenty of replacements on hand since any with medium to heavy battle damage would likely have to be hauled well over a thousand kilometers back to Poland for work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajay

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,469
47,944
136
It really shows how shut off Russia has become from the rest of the world that they think anyone would actually believe that.

Russian state media really dealing well with Europe accepting the proposition of life without them, after claims of economic disaster, and being pretty much ok.
 

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,890
5,001
126
So Russian women (widows?) are now selling their asses or/and eating animal feed.

#everyaccusationisanadmission

You're confusing the Russians with the GOP... or the GOP with the Russians. Wait a minute, I see a connection here...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitek

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,890
5,001
126
It really shows how shut off Russia has become from the rest of the world that they think anyone would actually believe that.

Really? Have you seen the propaganda that American citizens PaTrIoTs have eaten up and believed hook line and sinker? A lot of it revolves around globalist santanic democrats putting babies in blenders (after they rape them) and drinking their blood to stay youthful