Topic: Russia launches invasion of Ukraine (*) & use spoiler tags for anything graphic!

[classycarra]

Perhaps "pro-Russian" was not the best choice of words. What I meant is that they were not brought up with Russia being the Cold War enemy as that was done in other Western nations. Russian was even thought in schools and universities (not all like in the Eastern Block, but quite a few). The Finnish neutrality was a chosen neutrality, not imposed by the Powers as the Austrian one. I don't think the Finns feared Russia after WWII, I'm not sure they do now either, but there is a swing in the perception.

After the Russian invasion, there were a lot of reports from Finland that shared one word in particular - disappointment. Yes, there was anger, fear and all that, but the most reported feeling was the disappointment. You can easily find references online like these:
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/something-new-something-old-finland-verge-new-russia-relationship
https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-//1410845/finland-freezes-higher-education-and-research-cooperation-with-russia-support-for-ukrainian-students-in-finland

Now, of course, the backing for joining NATO is very strong. That's my perception, but maybe the resident RAWK Finns want to set the record straight?

Yeah I think you've got a fair few misconceptions there. Firstly on the language point, I just don't know where you're getting that from. The languages are so vastly different, I think the majority of Finns couldn't identify letters in the Cyrillic alphabet, let alone words. Just over 1.5% of Finnish population are native Russian speakers, and as I mentioned before it will largely be concentrated in Karelia or nearby. It's also going to be concentrated among families of those who were repatriated from Russia after the Finns gave citizenship in the 90s people (including the Ingrian Finns, who had been targetted by Soviets using familiar tactics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportations_of_the_Ingrian_Finns) as well as Russian-speaking Estonians. Are you sure you're not mixing it up with Swedish?

The second world war thing is as interesting as it is complex, but personally I wouldn't be using the phrase "chosen" or "not imposed". That makes it sound like a situation like Ireland's - when it was actually clearly under threat existentially. On the "disappointment" angle, I think it's firmly in the 'we were just a bit too trusting, forgiving and above all naive - how did we not anticipate Russia would invade Ukraine' as well as a 'shoulda listened to the Estonians (and Lithuanian and Latvians)'. But I think that feeling that 'it couldn't happen' was fairly global unfortunately - I think it's just proximity that makes it appear prominent in Finland. I can assure you though that if you consulted your average Finn in the street at any point in recent decades they wouldn't be advocating trusting the Russian state, and they'd be a great deal more sceptical (if they're being polite, and reserved, as they would tend to be) than your average Brit.

I think you're right the Finns don't fear Russia, but that doesn't mean they are 'pro' Russia or even tolerant of anything relating to the Russian state. So much of Finland's political development's in recent decades has been informed by preparing for the threat of Russia (and there's definitely no illusions in Russia that Finland may one day come on board with the Russian's).

[Lusty]

Trump is not getting in next year. Even if he wins the primary. In any case, it's still more than 20 months away.

With the new patriot batteries in Ukraine, causing damage deep behind the lines will become increasingly difficult to Russia. Yes, they're going to go for maximum damage, but it's whether they can afford the cost.

It doesn't have to be Trump exactly though does it?  Just someone with an 'America First' agenda.  DeSantis has been a bit quiet on the matter hasn't he?

Putin has got no ladder to climb down now so his only way out is to win on the battlefield, and the only way to do that is to cut off support from the West. 

[Red Beret]

It doesn't have to be Trump exactly though does it?  Just someone with an 'America First' agenda.  DeSantis has been a bit quiet on the matter hasn't he?

Putin has got no ladder to climb down now so his only way out is to win on the battlefield, and the only way to do that is to cut off support from the West.

It will come up in the election, it will have to. And other candidates won't be compromised to Russia the way Trump clearly is.

But in a worst case scenario where a GOP president withdraws military support for Ukraine, I think Europe/EU will carry on without them. The whole reason Clinton got involved in the Balkans was because Europe resolved to go in when the US had cold feet, so although the situations are different there is precedent for NATO nations not being joined at the hip.

Personally, I think the military bloc in the US is loving this and will lobby any president hard to continue.

[stara]

Perhaps "pro-Russian" was not the best choice of words.

It was not. Every nation seems to have their own subset/minority of pro-russians ...even USA. 

What I meant is that they were not brought up with Russia being the Cold War enemy as that was done in other Western nations.

Finland fought The Finnish Civil War and two wars (winter & continuation) against Russia to keep its independence. After the last one, Molotov said in an interview: “We were wise not to annexe Finland. It would have been a running sore… The people there are stubborn, very stubborn.”   

Russian was even thought in schools and universities (not all like in the Eastern Block, but quite a few).

It is and never was mandatory. Only mandatory languages are Finnish and Swedish. Languages like English, French, German and even Russia studies are voluntary. Some choose Russian in pursuit of their career. More often it's something else ...

There was a media press conference where the foreign media interviewed Finnish and Swedish army officers. One foreign journalist asked how they could communicate when the Finnish language isn't even in the same "language tree" as Swedish and is so different. Finnish officer : (looked at the Swedish officer) and said in English " how do you think we can manage?" and the Swedish officer replied, "I have no idea".

The Finnish neutrality was a chosen neutrality, not imposed by the Powers as the Austrian one. I don't think the Finns feared Russia after WWII, I'm not sure they do now either, but there is a swing in the perception.

I was told there is a joke among Finnish military that goes something like this; one time some junior officer suggested "what if the training had the "enemy" come from the west instead?", the other officers nods and agrees, "yes, Russia might do a flank attack through Sweden..."

Now, of course, the backing for joining NATO is very strong. That's my perception, but maybe the resident RAWK Finns want to set the record straight?

"The art of bowing to the East without mooning the West" -road came to a dead end at the moment Russia invaded Ukraine. Iacta alea est. Finland is crossing the Rubicon.

[24/7]

"The art of bowing to the East without mooning the West" -road came to a dead end at the moment Russia invaded Ukraine. Iacta alea est. Finland is crossing the Rubicon.

[Indomitable_Carp]

At any rate, doesn't Finland still put people through conscription, and they cross-train primarily with NATO countries? Despite any past conceptions of neutrality, I am pretty sure they're training to fight off a Russian invasion, and not say an Estonian or Swedish one.

[thaddeus]

*snip*

Thanks Stara, that was very informative.

[stara]

At any rate, doesn't Finland still put people through conscription, and they cross-train primarily with NATO countries? Despite any past conceptions of neutrality, I am pretty sure they're training to fight off a Russian invasion, and not say an Estonian or Swedish one.

Yes, Finland has conscription. If you want dive in: The Security Strategy for Society
https://turvallisuuskomitea.fi/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/YTS_2017_english.pdf

Finland is geographically extended (about size of Germany), yet sparsely populated state (5,5M vs. 83M) with a traditionally imperialist superpower right across the border (830 mi). The strategy is not put in place because of Estonia or Sweden.

[24/7]

Yes, Finland has conscription. If you want dive in: The Security Strategy for Society
https://turvallisuuskomitea.fi/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/YTS_2017_english.pdf

Finland is geographically extended (about size of Germany), yet sparsely populated state (5,5M vs. 83M) with a traditionally imperialist superpower right across the border (830 mi). The strategy is not put in place because of Estonia or Sweden.

The only Estonians invading Finland are workers The Finns who invade Estonia are beer-mad hockey fans on stag weekends   (That said, I've yet to meet a Finn whom I've not liked - lovely bunch of people once you get through the same kind of shell Estonians have!)

[thaddeus]

In the past week or so there's been commitments to send around 200 tanks to Ukraine from "the west".  The latest being Germany agreeing to send 14 Leopard 2 tanks and permitting other nations that own Leopard 2 tanks to do likewise.

Is this largely symbolic or potentially a battlefield changer?

From what I've seen it's been a war dominated by artillery, aerial bombardment and drones.  I caveat this with my complete ignorance of battlefield technology but tanks seem like they'd be sitting ducks in such a battle.  That said, Ukraine and Zelensky went very hard for those commitments so presumably they see some real value in having such kit.

[Schmidt]

In the past week or so there's been commitments to send around 200 tanks to Ukraine from "the west".  The latest being Germany agreeing to send 14 Leopard 2 tanks and permitting other nations that own Leopard 2 tanks to do likewise.

Is this largely symbolic or potentially a battlefield changer?

From what I've seen it's been a war dominated by artillery, aerial bombardment and drones.  I caveat this with my complete ignorance of battlefield technology but tanks seem like they'd be sitting ducks in such a battle.  That said, Ukraine and Zelensky went very hard for those commitments so presumably they see some real value in having such kit.

They have real value when it comes to taking back land. Russia's artillery is very inaccurate, they took the "accuracy through volume" route earlier in the invasion but they don't really have the volume any more. Russia also don't have any aerial control, they don't have a ton of jets and helicopters and more are being shot down every day.

Western tanks designed to destroy Russian tanks, against a Russian force using older and older models, would make a big difference in a sufficient quantity. Also the Bradleys that the US are delivering sound like they'll make a big difference too, as they'll help Ukraine move quickly to get close to or in behind Russian positions, which is something they did to great effect to take back the Kherson region. Russia are increasingly reliant on using waves of prisoners/conscripts, which might work against other infantry but won't do much to stop a tank brigade.

It sounds like everything is pointing towards Ukraine launching another spring offensive in March/April, once they have all of the hardware they need and the weather favours it.

[24/7]

In the past week or so there's been commitments to send around 200 tanks to Ukraine from "the west".  The latest being Germany agreeing to send 14 Leopard 2 tanks and permitting other nations that own Leopard 2 tanks to do likewise.

Is this largely symbolic or potentially a battlefield changer?

From what I've seen it's been a war dominated by artillery, aerial bombardment and drones.  I caveat this with my complete ignorance of battlefield technology but tanks seem like they'd be sitting ducks in such a battle.  That said, Ukraine and Zelensky went very hard for those commitments so presumably they see some real value in having such kit.

They're a lot more strategic than we might think.

Ever seen the account of how just two tanks took out a small convoy? Imagine a bottleneck roadway, which narrows to a point of pretty much just single file but long enough to accommodate said convoy.....imagine two tanks, one at each end of the bottleneck, dug in and cammod - when the first convoy vehicle reaches the end of the narrow road way, BOOM! - Cue 2nd tank taking out the rear vehicle. Talk about sitting ducks.....that's the rest of the convoy screwed, can't go forward, can't go back, tanks also have machine guns. Rat-a-tat-tat.

[farawayred]

"The art of bowing to the East without mooning the West" -road came to a dead end at the moment Russia invaded Ukraine. Iacta alea est. Finland is crossing the Rubicon.

Thanks, stara, much appreciated! That's very much what I tried to express, but you did a much better job.

And I too wanted to highlight the bit above.

[stoopid yank]

Is this largely symbolic or potentially a battlefield changer?

That's the multi-million dollar question isn't it? So far we have seen imo that these older soviet tanks are rolling coffins, vulnerable to even an amazon drone with a single thermal grenade, let alone a single soldier with shoulder fired anti-tank missile. But the Western tanks with their thermal optics, radar countermeasures, advanced targeting systems, advanced armor etc. etc should on paper do better, right? I don't know either.


On a side note, is anyone else worried about the new Russian anti-beard policy? They are calling it a disciplinary measure, but the implication here would be you need a clean shaven face for your chemical/biological warfare mask to fit properly.

https://www.firstpost.com/world/chechens-take-offense-as-russias-ukraine-commander-orders-soldiers-to-shave-beards-and-moustaches-12039452.html


 

[Lusty]

In the past week or so there's been commitments to send around 200 tanks to Ukraine from "the west".  The latest being Germany agreeing to send 14 Leopard 2 tanks and permitting other nations that own Leopard 2 tanks to do likewise.

Is this largely symbolic or potentially a battlefield changer?

From what I've seen it's been a war dominated by artillery, aerial bombardment and drones.  I caveat this with my complete ignorance of battlefield technology but tanks seem like they'd be sitting ducks in such a battle.  That said, Ukraine and Zelensky went very hard for those commitments so presumably they see some real value in having such kit.

This is basically the key.  There is a lot of back and forth on social media about the usefulness of tanks, but the fact is that Ukraine wants them.  There is no better expert in the world right now when it comes to fighting a modern land war against the Russians and if they are pushing this hard then they must have a strategic use for them.

[A-Bomb]

That's the multi-million dollar question isn't it? So far we have seen imo that these older soviet tanks are rolling coffins, vulnerable to even an amazon drone with a single thermal grenade, let alone a single soldier with shoulder fired anti-tank missile. But the Western tanks with their thermal optics, radar countermeasures, advanced targeting systems, advanced armor etc. etc should on paper do better, right? I don't know either.


On a side note, is anyone else worried about the new Russian anti-beard policy? They are calling it a disciplinary measure, but the implication here would be you need a clean shaven face for your chemical/biological warfare mask to fit properly.

https://www.firstpost.com/world/chechens-take-offense-as-russias-ukraine-commander-orders-soldiers-to-shave-beards-and-moustaches-12039452.html

It could also be a simple discipline thing, if there is descent in the ranks (which there have been stories of already)

Let's be honest, Russia do not have nor will provide hundreds of thousands of warfare masks to their soldiers. They barely provide the basics as it is right now.

[stoa]

It could also be a simple discipline thing, if there is descent in the ranks (which there have been stories of already)

Let's be honest, Russia do not have nor will provide hundreds of thousands of warfare masks to their soldiers. They barely provide the basics as it is right now.

I'd also argue that they would probably not give a fuck about whether the people wearing those masks had beards and got harmed because of that or not. Could be discipline or could also be an internal power play, i.e. the army chief telling Wagner and the Chechnians that he's calling the shots in this and they better start doing what he orders them to do. With one group it's not being idiots and posting their location on Instagram or whatever and with the other it's getting rid of their beards.

[Lone Star Red]

Biden just announced 31 Abrams to be sent to Ukraine, along with the necessary training and logistical support - both of which are needed as the Abrams is quite a sophisticated tank, even if they're older models.

As always with tanks, it often comes down to how they're used in the battlefield. Send them into a town with little infantry support and they're sitting ducks to a vast array of weapons. Use them in a combined arms unit in the right battlefield situation and they can be devastatingly effective and turn the tide of an entire front.

[Jiminy Cricket]

It could also be a simple discipline thing, if there is descent in the ranks (which there have been stories of already)

Let's be honest, Russia do not have nor will provide hundreds of thousands of warfare masks to their soldiers. They barely provide the basics as it is right now.

Russia only needs to supply masks for those at the front line. Because there is no chance of Ukraine responding in kind.

[Red Beret]

Russia has some very capable and advanced combat equipment, but I think they're increasingly reluctant to risk it. Sanctions have decimated their supply chains, making maintenance a challenge. Damaged vehicles seem to be abandoned rather than salvaged, too.

And ultimately, it's not just the tank, but the crew operating it. They're not grunts - they're highly trained people and likely difficult to replace. As has been said, anti-tank warefare is a sophisticated business these days, and with the right know-how you can take out a very expensive vehicle for relatively little cost.

But under the right conditions, a main battle tank is still a beast of a machine that can inflict serious damage on opposing forces. Ukraine seems to know how to use them.

[afc tukrish]

It could also be a simple discipline thing, if there is descent in the ranks

Maybe they just dropped trou to moon the officers...

[Gerry Attrick]

That's the multi-million dollar question isn't it? So far we have seen imo that these older soviet tanks are rolling coffins, vulnerable to even an amazon drone with a single thermal grenade, let alone a single soldier with shoulder fired anti-tank missile. But the Western tanks with their thermal optics, radar countermeasures, advanced targeting systems, advanced armor etc. etc should on paper do better, right? I don't know either.


On a side note, is anyone else worried about the new Russian anti-beard policy? They are calling it a disciplinary measure, but the implication here would be you need a clean shaven face for your chemical/biological warfare mask to fit properly.

https://www.firstpost.com/world/chechens-take-offense-as-russias-ukraine-commander-orders-soldiers-to-shave-beards-and-moustaches-12039452.html

Damn, I always knew the New York Yankees were up to no good.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Russia has some very capable and advanced combat equipment, but I think they're increasingly reluctant to risk it. Sanctions have decimated their supply chains, making maintenance a challenge. Damaged vehicles seem to be abandoned rather than salvaged, too.

And ultimately, it's not just the tank, but the crew operating it. They're not grunts - they're highly trained people and likely difficult to replace. As has been said, anti-tank warefare is a sophisticated business these days, and with the right know-how you can take out a very expensive vehicle for relatively little cost.

But under the right conditions, a main battle tank is still a beast of a machine that can inflict serious damage on opposing forces. Ukraine seems to know how to use them.

Nobody actually knows that though do they or are we supposed to start believing them now ?

[Red Beret]

Nobody actually knows that though do they or are we supposed to start believing them now ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90

750-1000 T-90s in service, compared to over 5,000 T-80 variants and around 25,000 T-72 variants. All currently in service, the latter models having featured heavily in Ukraine. The T-90 has popped up, but has fared little better.

[AndyInVA]

Biden just announced 31 Abrams to be sent to Ukraine, along with the necessary training and logistical support - both of which are needed as the Abrams is quite a sophisticated tank, even if they're older models.

As always with tanks, it often comes down to how they're used in the battlefield. Send them into a town with little infantry support and they're sitting ducks to a vast array of weapons. Use them in a combined arms unit in the right battlefield situation and they can be devastatingly effective and turn the tide of an entire front.

I think the combination of combat tested Ukrainian crews with modern tanks will be devastating. Just having the range to shoot from further away will make a difference. Without air superiority and the Ukranians having learnt tank/infantry tactics the hard way.. I imagine the Ukrainians would be eyeing a straight drive across the Donbas to the coast and cutting off Russian troops all the way to the Crimea. Once at the coast the bridge to Crimea should be in range.

This is a crazy video of what we assume to be a tank assaulting a trench on its own and firing into the bunker at literal point blank range

https://youtube.com/shorts/lGUxI8qnnxM?feature=share

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Like I asked,are we supposed to start believing them now ?

Because if we are then we might as well all surrender because they have shit that people haven't even though of yet,all fully working and just waiting for the right opportunity for use.


A war that they thought they were going to win within a week wasn't that opportunity,now was it once the Ukrainians started to kick ass with the most basic kit & it certainly wasn't when NATO members started sending hardware.

[Red Beret]

Like I asked,are we supposed to start believing them now ?

Because if we are then we might as well all surrender because they have shit that people haven't even though of yet,all fully working and just waiting for the right opportunity for use.


A war that they thought they were going to win within a week wasn't that opportunity,now was it once the Ukrainians started to kick ass with the most basic kit & it certainly wasn't when NATO members started sending hardware.

I do not understand your point?

Russia has advanced equipment. But with sanctions limiting their ability to maintain, repair or replace this equipment, any losses are effectively irreplaceable at this point. They've had some top of the line stuff in Ukraine, and it's gone to the dogs just as easily as lesser material.  I don't see any reason there to roll over for them.

This website holds a list of confirmed kills.

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html

[WhereAngelsPlay]

My point is that since the break up their so called advancements haven't been that advanced,that is unless we're supposed to believe their propaganda pieces that have been proven to be fakes half the time and just pure fantasy the other half.

You just said your self that even their "top" shit is actually a bit shit.

As for replacements,I was mocked on here when I pointed out that the lack of microchips was going to kill them,so I'm fucked if I'm going to go back down that alley (not a pop at you),I'm smug enough as it is.

[Red Beret]

My point is that since the break up their so called advancements haven't been that advanced,that is unless we're supposed to believe their propaganda pieces that have been proven to be fakes half the time and just pure fantasy the other half.

You just said your self that even their "top" shit is actually a bit shit.

As for replacements,I was mocked on here when I pointed out that the lack of microchips was going to kill them,so I'm fucked if I'm going to go back down that alley (not a pop at you),I'm smug enough as it is.

I said their top stuff had gone as easily as their older material. That's not because it's shit though - it's because it's been poorly utilized. Bad tactics, poor communications and lousy logistics have all played their part.

[Schmidt]

I said their top stuff had gone as easily as their older material. That's not because it's shit though - it's because it's been poorly utilized. Bad tactics, poor communications and lousy logistics have all played their part.

It's both. Russia is rife with corruption; most of the money funneled into the design, construction and maintenance of their equipment ends up getting pilfered and the result is poor tech that was already falling apart and breaking down on its way into Ukraine.

There's a reason T-14 tanks haven't been seen on the battlefield despite being their latest design, they barely have any and the few they do have aren't functional.

[Mister Flip Flop]

Nobody has a clue how much equipment Russia has in reserve and what state it's in. Iv'e read reports they have literally hundreds of warehouses located in remote spots throughout the country piled to the roof with stuff and other reports they have eat their way through 80% of all their supplies in the last 11 months. I'm guessing the truth is somewhere in the middle and a lot of the stuff they have in reserve is decades old and doesn't work. It's probably likely they are holding some of their better gear back to defend their actual borders and Crimea but they've showed thus far just how inept a military they are so all that stuff has more than likely been sold to the highest bidding warlord or criminal organisations.

As a side note a friend of mine was over in one of the holiday resorts in Thailand a couple of weeks back and the place in stuffed with Russians a lot walking around with Z T-shirts and Russian flag headbands etc..    They are a bunch of dickheads.

[Red Beret]

It's both. Russia is rife with corruption; most of the money funneled into the design, construction and maintenance of their equipment ends up getting pilfered and the result is poor tech that was already falling apart and breaking down on its way into Ukraine.

There's a reason T-14 tanks haven't been seen on the battlefield despite being their latest design, they barely have any and the few they do have aren't functional.

Whilst that is true, I doubt they would risk T-14s even if they were functional. As I said, they have 25,000 T-72s, but it's likely a huge number are in storage and who knows how many of them actually work.

The point being made was a disagreement on that statement that Russia has very capable and advanced equipment. And whilst all the reasons listed by myself and you mitigate against deployment, to say they simply don't possess said equipment is not a sound argument to me.

T-90s are extremely capable tanks. They've been out on the battlefield, and a fair number have been lost. The T-14 hasn't even really entered mass production yet, as far as I can tell. Stuff getting blasted doesn't mean it's shit - lots of stuff gets blown up in a war.

[west_london_red]

Whilst that is true, I doubt they would risk T-14s even if they were functional. As I said, they have 25,000 T-72s, but it's likely a huge number are in storage and who knows how many of them actually work.

The point being made was a disagreement on that statement that Russia has very capable and advanced equipment. And whilst all the reasons listed by myself and you mitigate against deployment, to say they simply don't possess said equipment is not a sound argument to me.

T-90s are extremely capable tanks. They've been out on the battlefield, and a fair number have been lost. The T-14 hasn't even really entered mass production yet, as far as I can tell. Stuff getting blasted doesn't mean it's shit - lots of stuff gets blown up in a war.

25,000 T72’s is the total number built including those built under license by other countries and exported by the Russians.

[Red Beret]

25,000 T72’s is the total number built including those built under license by other countries and exported by the Russians.

That's fair enough, I did a check for Russia only units.  About 2,000 active (all models), with another 8,000 in reserve, presumably in storage. That's still almost half of all units built.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72_operators_and_variants

Russia
850 T-72B3,
550 T-72B3M, and
630 T-72B are in operation in 2022.

270 T-72B3 received in 2013.
Additional 143 T-72B3 were delivered as of October 2014.
300 were delivered during the year.
596 were upgraded to T-72B3 before 2015; more than 70 in 2015. 30 more as of May 2016.

About 1000 tanks have been modernized as of September 2016,[53] +300 (>1,300 up to 2017).
40 tanks were delivered in September 2016. +154 T-72B3M in 2017.

2,030 T-72 active,
8,000 in reserve in 2020.

Deliveries and orders of modernized T-72B3Ms continue through 2022 even despite economic sanctions due to the invasion in Ukraine.

[PaulF]

Someone on the radio was saying, that even though the Ukranians are very quick to getting to grips with Western military hardware, there's a long logistics chain that has to be built up for the tanks. They can't just be deployed immediately. Or  at least they are a lot less effective if not properly supported.
One thing they were saying is that at the moment , infantry are cannon fodder. the shrapnel and blast from Russian artillery makes some operations impossible. Tanks will change this. I couldn't figure out if he meant the troops could mostly be moved in tanks, or if the tanks were mobile shields against blast. A direct hit obviously kills infantry.  Maybe the idea is the tanks can go in, take out the majority of the artillery leaving room for the infantry to follow.

Either way, it's disgusting how "we" can waste so much money killing people.

[24/7]

https://news.err.ee/1608863318/expert-ukrainians-need-8-weeks-of-training-to-use-leopard-tanks

Expert: Ukrainians need 8 weeks of training to use Leopard tanks

[snippet]
Ukrainians will need around two months of training to use the Leopard tanks pledged by Germany and Ukraine probably already has plans to use different vehicles effectively, Estonian defense experts said on Wednesday.

On Wednesday, Germany, after weeks of discussions and refusals, agreed to send 14 Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. But Ukraine's armed forces will not be allowed to use them straight away.

"In Poland, these tanks are fully available and I believe simulators too. And to actually practice everything, including shooting, it all takes, say, eight weeks. I'm estimating because it's a completely new thing," Colonel Peeter Tali told Wednesday's "Ringvaate".

He said it is not impossible that Ukrainians have already been trained in Poland.

The effects of the tank will be seen on the battlefield in spring, March or April, Tali said, as it will be harder to use them any sooner when the roads will be muddy or difficult to pass....

[west_london_red]

By some accounts they have lost over 1,000 tanks in Ukraine already, but no idea how they are split across the various models and variants. I’m sure they can cannibalise what they have in storage and bring more tanks into service, but as Ukraine may unfortunately find out soon getting the equipment is one thing, getting people trained up to operate them is quite another and how many trained and experienced tank crews the Russians have available might be more of a limiting factor than the actual tanks.

[Red Beret]

Maybe the idea is the tanks can go in, take out the majority of the artillery leaving room for the infantry to follow.

Either way, it's disgusting how "we" can waste so much money killing people.

Yeah, makes sense. It sounds as though Russian artillery is using Hi-Explosive shells - murder for troops, buts limited utility against tanks. You need armour piercing for tanks? 

Also, artillery is far behind the lines, and maybe in concealment and taking advantage of terrain. Could a rapid tank assault overwhelm the front, then make a charge for the artillery?

[24/7]

By some accounts they have lost over 1,000 tanks in Ukraine already, but no idea how they are split across the various models and variants. I’m sure they can cannibalise what they have in storage and bring more tanks into service, but as Ukraine may unfortunately find out soon getting the equipment is one thing, getting people trained up to operate them is quite another and how many trained and experienced tank crews the Russians have available might be more of a limiting factor than the actual tanks.

The article below suggests it's possible Ukrainians have already been trained in simulators and actual models in Poland whilst the German government was busy prevaricating and fretting.....

[Red Beret]

That Oryx website link I posted earlier contained a list of confirmed Russian vehicle losses. It's a breakdown by vehicle type of visually confirmed kills, based on images. It doesn't say when it was last updated though, so I don't know how accurate it is.

However, it does show over 1600 Russian tank losses of all types.