advertisement


Ukraine V

Not if you want a cheap tank killer.
But my point was they don't need cheap tank killers, they need to break through fortified defensive lines manned by infantry and protected by tanks and artillery. That little armoured car will get shot to bits trying to break through that line, probably before it has a chance to even see an enemy tank.

EDIT: ok so they probably would love cheap tank killers regardless, but in order to throw out Russia, they need heavier equipment. Like tanks or IFVs

4_cv90_lahti_2008_reservilainen_terotuominen.jpg
 
When I was a kid in the 70s, I had an uncle on my mums side called William who loved the country music of the time - Johnny Cash, Charlie Rich etc. When he got to his late teens he joined the Army and eventually became a tank commander. When they would gather to receive orders in the morning or on exercise, he said the state board would have a list of the available assets and who was in charge of them - he was filled with joy when he saw his vehicle listed as Tank, Williams.
 
But my point was they don't need cheap tank killers, they need to break through fortified defensive lines manned by infantry and protected by tanks and artillery. That little armoured car will get shot to bits trying to break through that line, probably before it has a chance to even see an enemy tank.

They need something to address the imbalance between Ukraine and Russian numbers-Russia will keep pouring tanks onto the frontline to counter any Ukrainian offensive action. Ukraine will win more tank-on-tank engagements with capable MBTs like Abrams, Challenger and Leopard 2, but will neve have the numbers to win overall (cf German vs Russian armour in 1943). Ukraine needs to use the tanks to do what they are most effective at; capturing ground and f**king off as soon as the infantry arrives.

Ukraine will also need a lot of mobile close air defence to deal with RPS and drones. Automatic weapons will be fine for this task; nothing sophisticated, just truck mounted dshk will be fine.

You said their time for use as a valid tactic was over but it's not. They still need fast, maneuverable vehicles in support to retain tactical advantage and ensure the few good tanks they have survive longer.

ATGMs are normally ambush weapons, so the current man-carried approach will not work as well. Digging and holding a line is easier than taking ground and holding; MBTs are essential but not the total answer.
 
You said their time for use as a valid tactic was over but it's not. They still need fast, maneuverable vehicles in support to retain tactical advantage and ensure the few good tanks they have survive longer.
I meant that in the Kharkiv offensive the Russian lines were so thinly and poorly defended due to manpower shortage, that the UA could just break through with stuff similar to this.

FUfRbJ5XwAES7GU.jpg

I was responding to a statement that "tanks are fairly symbolic" - they are really not because the front doesn't look like it did then anywhere. You need to go in with something that can take a hit, unless you want to do attritional warfare like Russia has been doing recently. I don't think that's a winning tactic, especially not for Ukraine. They need an armored fist to break through the lines, then we can hopefully again read news about Russians leaving their equipment behind and retreating in disarray.

Of course you never send in tanks alone if you have any sense, Britain did that in early WW2 in Africa and hopefully no-one ever makes that mistake again. But Ukraine needs good tanks to make the breakthrough. Not just as a symbolic gesture of solidarity.
 
I can't imagine it would be too get a few cranes to lift a couple of AA systems on top of buidlings in London as well:
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/internati...tems-installed-on-moscow-roofs_6012473_4.html
Well, it's an old system similar to US ones from the 50s, with poor guidance and nuclear warheads to make up for it.

My favorite missile from that era is the US Genie - air to air, nuclear tipped, Unguided rocket!

We really don't make them like we used to...

The closest things today is SM-3, THAAD interceptors and National Missile Defense ones. And they don't even have warheads.
 
Last edited:
Even more tank talk in the news but unless the side I am on have air supremacy I still don’t fancy it no matter where the iron coffin sorry tank was made. Interesting to see what Russia does next.
 
Well, it's an old system similar to US ones from the 50s, with poor guidance and nuclear warheads to make up for it.

My favorite missile from that era is the US Genie - air to air, nuclear tipped, Unguided rocket!

We really don't make them like we used to...

The closest things today is SM-3, THAAD interceptors and National Missile Defense ones. And they don't even have warheads.

May I present you with the Sprint ABM, which actively served for precisely two days in 1977, but which was technically incredible.

SPRINT ABM - Zero to Mach 10 in 5 Seconds! - YouTube
 
Jets and long-range missiles next? https://www.france24.com/en/europe/...-battle-tanks-for-ukraine-german-media-report

"We must also open deliveries of long-range missiles to Ukraine, it is important -- we must expand our cooperation in artillery," Zelensky said, also adding Ukraine needed jets.

That would presumably set the Doomsday Clock at 1 minute to midnight.
I think "long range" means "longer range" - not ICBMs, but the longer range version of the HIMARS already supplied by the USA. As I understand it, the ones possessed by the Ukrainians are relatively short-range, so the Russians can establish their supply depots out of HIMARS range while still being inside occupied territory. The longer range version would make these vulnerable.
 
Yes, they asking for ATACMS rockets for HIMARS systems, 300km range. Current rockets is only 80km, even cannot cover their own, occupied, territories.
 
Orban said that the West needs to understand that Putin cannot afford to lose, and will not lose, because he's up for re-election next year, and he cannot run as the president who lost a war. What's more, he said, Russia cannot allow NATO to establish a presence in Ukraine. The time has long passed when Russia might have been able to conquer Ukraine, or install a friendly regime. Had Russia won a quick victory, that might have been possible, but it's hopeless now. Therefore, said Orban, Russia's goal is to make Ukraine an ungovernable wreck, so the West cannot claim it as a prize. At this, they have already succeeded. "It's Afghanistan now," he said. "The land of nobody." (Meaning: No Man's Land.)

The West doesn't understand that time is on Russia's side in Ukraine. Russia is a huge country, and can mobilize a vast army. Ukraine is already running out of troops. When that happens, then what?

"We are in big, big trouble," he said, of the West. If Russia's coming spring offensive proves successful, then the NATO countries are going to be faced with the question of do we send in soldiers to fight for Ukraine? This is not something Orban thinks the American people are considering, but it is front to mind among a growing number of Europeans, whose countries stand to be devastated if war spreads.

Really? NATO troops fighting Russians in Ukraine?

Yes, said Orban. It sounds crazy today, "but if you look at the tendency of how we got to this point today, it can't be ruled out."

"We are in a war with Russia. That's the reality," he said. "Every day we are moving further in."

To be clear, Viktor Orban doesn't want the West to be in a war with Russia. But he says that far too many Westerners are deluding themselves about what's really happening -- and what could happen. A journalist asked the prime minister if he thought the war could go nuclear. "I can't exclude that they would use it," he said, of the atomic bomb. He clarified that he was talking about tactical battlefield nukes, not mushroom clouds over Warsaw and Berlin -- "but I can't exclude that either." If Ukraine somehow, using Western weapons, gets to the point of crossing the border into Russian territory, then the future of the world will be so bright the West will have to wear shades.

Someone pointed out that the Russians have had a sorry battlefield performance to this point. Yes, said Orban, it's true. But if you look at Russian history, this is how it goes with the Russians at war. They start out poorly, but after a while, they figure things out, and then become hard to stop. He expects that will be the case this time. He also mentioned at the start of the session that Russia's being pushed into an alliance with Iran is extremely dangerous for Israel, and expressed hope that Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, whose adult son was sitting at the table, could become a peacemaker between Russia and Ukraine. Though Ukraine has had some amazing successes against Russia, Orban said in the long term, he can't see that we in the West are on the winning side, especially considering Russia's manufacturing capacity.
 


advertisement


Back
Top