Advertisement



  1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

Ukraine V

Discussion in 'off topic' started by DimitryZ, Jun 29, 2022.

  1. Chefren

    Chefren pfm Member

    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

    [​IMG]
     
    DimitryZ likes this.
  2. Spraggons Den

    Spraggons Den pfm Member

    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.
     
    sean99, Ian G, Rob998 and 1 other person like this.
  3. Seeker_UK

    Seeker_UK Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans

    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.
     
  4. stevec67

    stevec67 pfm Member

    That truck's as cool as a penguin's bottom. I want one. If you could get a civilian version of that I bet it would sell like water at a rave. It's got French markings, who makes it?
     
  5. Rob998

    Rob998 Scimmia Nordoccidentale

  6. Barrymagrec

    Barrymagrec pfm Member

    Rob998 likes this.
  7. stevec67

    stevec67 pfm Member

    Wowser, that's great! However at 3.5T for the armoured version I'll pass, even if it is amphibious and comes with a propellor. I didn't know Panhard still existed as a vehicle manufacturer, that's good news at least.
     
    martin clark and Rob998 like this.
  8. Chefren

    Chefren pfm Member

    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.

    [​IMG]
    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.
     
    Seeker_UK likes this.
  9. anubisgrau

    anubisgrau pfm Member

    If there is a group buy of that camo jeep on PFM, +1 on me. i don't need a missile so give to ukr.
     
  10. Yank

    Yank Bulbous Also Tapered

  11. DimitryZ

    DimitryZ pfm Member

    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: Jan 25, 2023
  12. Spraggons Den

    Spraggons Den pfm Member

    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.
     
  13. Tim Jones

    Tim Jones pfm Member

    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
     
    DimitryZ likes this.
  14. Seeker_UK

    Seeker_UK Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans

    DimitryZ likes this.
  15. notaclue

    notaclue pfm Member

  16. DimitryZ

    DimitryZ pfm Member

    Nope, it's ALL Putin's bluff.
     
  17. tones

    tones Tones deaf

    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.
     
  18. gints

    gints pfm Member

    Yes, they asking for ATACMS rockets for HIMARS systems, 300km range. Current rockets is only 80km, even cannot cover their own, occupied, territories.
     
  19. anubisgrau

    anubisgrau pfm Member

    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.
     
  20. Seeker_UK

    Seeker_UK Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans

    Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?
     
    DimitryZ and Hook like this.

Share This Page





Advertisement


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice