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

[Sangria]

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?

Tanks aren't expected to be impervious to anti tank fire. Top of the range stuff like fully equipped Abrams and Challenger 2s are more impervious than most, but at least part of that is how they are used, in combination with infantry and air superiority that prevents anything heavy from seriously challenging them. The principal component of your average tank, the thing that defines it way more than its protective armour, is its gun. A tank carries serious firepower through a contested battlefield.

[Red Beret]

Tanks aren't expected to be impervious to anti tank fire. Top of the range stuff like fully equipped Abrams and Challenger 2s are more impervious than most, but at least part of that is how they are used, in combination with infantry and air superiority that prevents anything heavy from seriously challenging them. The principal component of your average tank, the thing that defines it way more than its protective armour, is its gun. A tank carries serious firepower through a contested battlefield.

Sorry, I meant that currently Russian artillery seems to be predominantly using anti-personnel shells - stuff that blows up troops, probably makes mincemeat of lightly armoured personnel carriers, and wrecks civilian infrastructure. As you say, they would need ant-tank ordinance to take on a massed armoured offensive.

I was just wondering if such an offensive could "close the gap" on the artillery before they could switch rounds, maybe destroying it, or forcing the crews to abandon it.

[Sangria]

Sorry, I meant that currently Russian artillery seems to be predominantly using anti-personnel shells - stuff that blows up troops, probably makes mincemeat of lightly armoured personnel carriers, and wrecks civilian infrastructure. As you say, they would need ant-tank ordinance to take on a massed armoured offensive.

I was just wondering if such an offensive could "close the gap" on the artillery before they could switch rounds, maybe destroying it, or forcing the crews to abandon it.

Tanks should be advancing in combination with infantry, using cover. In any case, artillery generally fires at an area, not at targets. The area effect will marmalise anything unprotected in the open, so opposing infantry are forced to stay below ground to survive (why trench warfare happened in WWI). Once you have mobile firepower advancing, their accompanying infantry will make life unpleasant for anything anti-tank, while artillery doesn't have the leisure any more to just plaster an area in their own time.

Incidentally, despite what many historians and theorists say about watering down tank formations with non-tank soldiery, what every commander of an armoured formation in WWII wanted was:
1. More fuel.
2. More infantry.

[Red Beret]

Tanks should be advancing in combination with infantry, using cover. In any case, artillery generally fires at an area, not at targets. The area effect will marmalise anything unprotected in the open, so opposing infantry are forced to stay below ground to survive (why trench warfare happened in WWI). Once you have mobile firepower advancing, their accompanying infantry will make life unpleasant for anything anti-tank, while artillery doesn't have the leisure any more to just plaster an area in their own time.

Incidentally, despite what many historians and theorists say about watering down tank formations with non-tank soldiery, what every commander of an armoured formation in WWII wanted was:
1. More fuel.
2. More infantry.

Very informative. Thanks! 👍

[PaulF]

The Americans are saying the they have no spare tanks, do they will ha have to purchase from other countries or private contractors. What are these contractors, are we talking another Wagner group? Like there's private armies with tanks! Or do you think they mean buy new ones?

[BarryCrocker]

The Americans are saying the they have no spare tanks, do they will ha have to purchase from other countries or private contractors. What are these contractors, are we talking another Wagner group? Like there's private armies with tanks! Or do you think they mean buy new ones?

According to the IISS, the US Army has 2,509 Abrams M1A1 and M1A2 tanks in service, with a further 3,700 in storage. - Washington Post 25/01/2023

[Schmidt]

The Americans are saying the they have no spare tanks, do they will ha have to purchase from other countries or private contractors. What are these contractors, are we talking another Wagner group? Like there's private armies with tanks! Or do you think they mean buy new ones?

I believe the plan is to recall Abrams tanks that are being used by other countries, have the manufacturers refurbish them, then send them to Ukraine. It'll take a few months but so will the training.

[stoa]

The Americans are saying the they have no spare tanks, do they will ha have to purchase from other countries or private contractors. What are these contractors, are we talking another Wagner group? Like there's private armies with tanks! Or do you think they mean buy new ones?

There are Private Military Contractors that provide "services" for various countries including the US. The most well-known is probably Blackwater who did a lot of stuff for the US in Afghanistan and Iraq and there was a lot of controversy surrounding their work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_(company) ). They've been renamed since that. Don't know if they actually have tanks, but I wouldn't be surprised, if they did. The UN have a convention against using mercenaries, but the US have not signed that because they are using those PMCs, which can very much be classed as mercenaries. Having said that, there's also probably a wide variety of those PMCs and not everyone is a gang of obvious thugs like the Wagner group or involved in controversial stuff like Blackwater.

[Musketeer Gripweed]

I assume that the tank training required will not be taking place in Ukraine as no other countries will be sending any troops in to the region. And do the Ukrainians pick them up at a branch of Enterprise or Alamo somewhere near the border?

Sarcasm apart, I am struggling to find out how they get round the actual training of using the weapons and the likes without saying there are no NATO units in the area.

[Schmidt]

I assume that the tank training required will not be taking place in Ukraine as no other countries will be sending any troops in to the region. And do the Ukrainians pick them up at a branch of Enterprise or Alamo somewhere near the border?

Sarcasm apart, I am struggling to find out how they get round the actual training of using the weapons and the likes without saying there are no NATO units in the area.

Ukrainians will fly to the states to train there, assuming they're not there already.

[west_london_red]

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.....

That’s probably true I would imagine, I remember seeing a piece on the BBC about Ukrainian pilots training in simulators for the F16 and A10 in case they received them so no reason they wouldn’t do the same with tanks

[classycarra]

I assume that the tank training required will not be taking place in Ukraine as no other countries will be sending any troops in to the region. And do the Ukrainians pick them up at a branch of Enterprise or Alamo somewhere near the border?

Sarcasm apart, I am struggling to find out how they get round the actual training of using the weapons and the likes without saying there are no NATO units in the area.

It's a good question, made me want to look it up (haven't got an answer on the tanks, but I assume it's similar).

The UK set up training programmes to help Ukraine ahead of Russia annexing crimea - and in those they operated in Ukraine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orbital#History

The successor programme after Russia's full invasion seems to be operating from the UK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Interflex#History

Not sure there's any issue with NATO units being in the area - especially if for example they operated in the West near NATO-nation borders - but presumably worthwhile avoiding the risk of Russia accidentally carpet bombing NATO when they were 'merely' trying to kill some freezing Ukrainian citizens

[24/7]

Ukrainians will fly to the states to train there, assuming they're not there already.

They are - there's also a contingent of the Estonian EDF training them over there and here.

[PaulF]

Have any of the new tanks being sent over been used in battle? Will Russia and potential other enemies gain significant Intel when they are used?
Do you think there's a credible risk that russia will use a battlefield nuke to take out a tank battalion? I only found out today, only they have them.

[PaulF]

They are - there's also a contingent of the Estonian EDF training them over there and here.

You get the impression a tank crew can learn the leopards in a day or two. Not so the American tanks.  What seems to take longer is learning how to maintain them.

On a more general note. Winter was always going to be a new kind of hell for the Ukrainians. And spring see a new russian push.  The Ukrainians seen to have toughed out most of the winter. Now faced with up to half a million troops.  Even three hundred tanks will surely struggle against that?

[24/7]

You get the impression a tank crew can learn the leopards in a day or two. Not so the American tanks.  What seems to take longer is learning how to maintain them.

They've been over there (and here) for months

[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.

Sources saying it’ll actually be 31 M1A2’s that are sent over, so not one of the older variants:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/26/us-sends-ukraine-advanced-abrams-tanks-00079648

[redbyrdz]

I assume that the tank training required will not be taking place in Ukraine as no other countries will be sending any troops in to the region. And do the Ukrainians pick them up at a branch of Enterprise or Alamo somewhere near the border?

Sarcasm apart, I am struggling to find out how they get round the actual training of using the weapons and the likes without saying there are no NATO units in the area.

Ukrainians have been training on Nato bases across Europe since before the war. They'll just go abroad to pick the tanks up.

Think a lot of the training on the US weapons has been in US camps in Germany.

[Red Beret]

Something of interest here that flew right past me, but probably caught the attention of some of you more eagle-eyed posters: Ukrainian sea drones.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/nU00QYhU4OA&amp;ab_channel=Warographics" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/nU00QYhU4OA&amp;ab_channel=Warographics</a>

Might not be a game changer at this point, but forcing the Black Sea Fleet into a defensive posture is likely critical if Ukraine has any long term ambition of taking back Crimea.

[west_london_red]

So looks like the Israelis have attacked a number of military installations in Iran, including a drone factory. Can’t my say I’m completely comfortable with Israel violating another country’s airspace, but at the same time hopefully this puts a major spanner in the works for Russia in obtaining more drones, although it might just mean Iran and Russia start cooperating more as I’m guessing the Iranians will be after a few S400’s to try and secure their airspace after last night’s operation.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

So looks like the Israelis have attacked a number of military installations in Iran, including a drone factory. Can’t my say I’m completely comfortable with Israel violating another country’s airspace, but at the same time hopefully this puts a major spanner in the works for Russia in obtaining more drones, although it might just mean Iran and Russia start cooperating more as I’m guessing the Iranians will be after a few S400’s to try and secure their airspace after last night’s operation.

Be funny if the original washer had to run back to the motherland as a result of this.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Ukrainians have been training on Nato bases across Europe since before the war. They'll just go abroad to pick the tanks up.

Think a lot of the training on the US weapons has been in US camps in Germany.

Didn't Boris let it slip that the SAS were in the Ukraine training them ?

[Sangria]

So looks like the Israelis have attacked a number of military installations in Iran, including a drone factory. Can’t my say I’m completely comfortable with Israel violating another country’s airspace, but at the same time hopefully this puts a major spanner in the works for Russia in obtaining more drones, although it might just mean Iran and Russia start cooperating more as I’m guessing the Iranians will be after a few S400’s to try and secure their airspace after last night’s operation.

Ryan McBeth reckons it's another of Iran's enemies using Israeli-sold weapons rather than Israel itself. Twitter footage indicates it's an Israeli-made drone, which is outside the range of Israel itself, but within the range of Azerbaijan, where Iran/Russia and Turkey have been fighting a proxy war (and Israel has been selling weapons to both sides).

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Vyae0ZWZXT0

[west_london_red]

Ryan McBeth reckons it's another of Iran's enemies using Israeli-sold weapons rather than Israel itself. Twitter footage indicates it's an Israeli-made drone, which is outside the range of Israel itself, but within the range of Azerbaijan, where Iran/Russia and Turkey have been fighting a proxy war (and Israel has been selling weapons to both sides).

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Vyae0ZWZXT0

I don’t think there’s such a thing as ‘range’ in the vocabulary of the Israeli defence and security services, one way or another they manage to reach their targets. I wouldn’t be surprised if they managed to get drones into and launched from Iran itself.

[Sangria]

I don’t think there’s such a thing as ‘range’ in the vocabulary of the Israeli defence and security services, one way or another they manage to reach their targets. I wouldn’t be surprised if they managed to get drones into and launched from Iran itself.

Isn't that a bit disregarding evidence, and just handwaving any such or lack to confirm an already made conclusion?

[west_london_red]

Isn't that a bit disregarding evidence, and just handwaving any such or lack to confirm an already made conclusion?

What evidence am I disregarding? You think Israel is incapable of launching drones from ships, land or planes that bring Iran in range? Or that Israel doesn’t have motive, especially under Netanyahu?

[Sangria]

What evidence am I disregarding? You think Israel is incapable of launching drones from ships, land or planes that bring Iran in range? Or that Israel doesn’t have motive, especially under Netanyahu?

I'm citing someone who's fairly respected in confirming or debunking popular (well, tweeted) military theories, based on a higher level of know-how in interpreting evidence than "I'm sure this is so". Someone who's been open to admitting that "based on current evidence, it's too soon to draw conclusions".

Maybe Israel was responsible. But I'd like a better argument than "I'm sure Israel were responsible".

[Red Beret]

What evidence am I disregarding? You think Israel is incapable of launching drones from ships, land or planes that bring Iran in range? Or that Israel doesn’t have motive, especially under Netanyahu?

I think if we employ Occam's Razor, it's safe to assume it's more astute for Israel to sell weapons to someone to use them against Iran, rather than employ such weapons against it themselves? 

The only question is the timing. That might determine better if what you say is accurate, or whether the strike is just coincidental.

[Sangria]

I think if we employ Occam's Razor, it's safe to assume it's more astute for Israel to sell weapons to someone to use them against Iran, rather than employ such weapons against it themselves? 

The only question is the timing. That might determine better if what you say is accurate, or whether the strike is just coincidental.

The reports so far indicate that, whether or not Israel was responsible, Iran probably won't be directly responding against Israel. When their nuke plants were hacked, Iran were extremely reticent to admit that there were problems, let alone that Israel was responsible (which it was, in partnership with the US). In the end, the Israeli hacking of Iranian nuke plants were more an IT and historical case study than a political crisis. This might be similar, in that internal rivalries may mean that spinning the incidents as the fault of internal traitors may be more politically profitable than pinning it on Israel, with the truth as far as we can find it being something of a historical sidenote.

[Wabaloolah]

So Putin "threatened to kill"Johnson in a missile attack. Finally he makes a threat I could get behind!

I don't believe a word that comes out of the grifter Johnson's mouth though

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-claims-vladimir-putin-29079577#source=breaking-news

[WhereAngelsPlay]

So Putin "threatened to kill"Johnson in a missile attack. Finally he makes a threat I could get behind!

I don't believe a word that comes out of the grifter Johnson's mouth though

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-claims-vladimir-putin-29079577#source=breaking-news

c*nt will just be after better protection.

[Red Beret]

The reports so far indicate that, whether or not Israel was responsible, Iran probably won't be directly responding against Israel. When their nuke plants were hacked, Iran were extremely reticent to admit that there were problems, let alone that Israel was responsible (which it was, in partnership with the US). In the end, the Israeli hacking of Iranian nuke plants were more an IT and historical case study than a political crisis. This might be similar, in that internal rivalries may mean that spinning the incidents as the fault of internal traitors may be more politically profitable than pinning it on Israel, with the truth as far as we can find it being something of a historical sidenote.

I've no idea what's right, proper or appropriate. I think for the time being one side will balance the other until it's deemed one side has the balance over the other. But if Iran fears Israeli infiltration, then I guess any potential weapon/intelligence is of use to us.

[liverbloke]

So Putin "threatened to kill"Johnson in a missile attack. Finally he makes a threat I could get behind!

I don't believe a word that comes out of the grifter Johnson's mouth though

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-claims-vladimir-putin-29079577#source=breaking-news

if it's a russian missle that's gonna target johnson then we're all in danger of being taken out 

[reddebs]

Was Putin threatening Boris personally and directly or the UK generally?

I think it's more likely it was the UK but Boris is a genius at making everything about him and keeping himself front and centre.

[Gerry Attrick]

Was Putin threatening Boris personally and directly or the UK generally?

I think it's more likely it was the UK but Boris is a genius at making everything about him and keeping himself front and centre.

It would have to be the UK. The chances of Russia getting a missile precise enough to target Johnson’s immediate vicinity without it being intercepted are slim to zero. That means it’d have to be the unspeakable pretty much.

[24/7]

Was Putin threatening Boris personally and directly or the UK generally?

I think it's more likely it was the UK but Boris is a genius at making everything about him and keeping himself front and centre.

Wish he would be front and centre in such an attack - his mass would absorb 99% of the damage.

[Nobby Reserve]

So Putin "threatened to kill"Johnson in a missile attack. Finally he makes a threat I could get behind!

I don't believe a word that comes out of the grifter Johnson's mouth though

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-claims-vladimir-putin-29079577#source=breaking-news

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Walter Mitty Johnson

[lobsterboy]

I'm calling bullshit on Johnson's claims.
This is simply the Yetis attempt to look like he was a strong PM and to deflect from the ongoing scrutiny over his corruption and deceit.

[Mister Flip Flop]

So Putin "threatened to kill"Johnson in a missile attack. Finally he makes a threat I could get behind!

I don't believe a word that comes out of the grifter Johnson's mouth though

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-claims-vladimir-putin-29079577#source=breaking-news

Tells you all you need to know about Johnson when everyone ive spoke to this morning think she's making that up for kudos. Christ he's a despicable twat.

[Flaccido Dongingo]

I'm citing someone who's fairly respected in confirming or debunking popular (well, tweeted) military theories, based on a higher level of know-how in interpreting evidence than "I'm sure this is so". Someone who's been open to admitting that "based on current evidence, it's too soon to draw conclusions".

Maybe Israel was responsible. But I'd like a better argument than "I'm sure Israel were responsible".

Weird that people people see what the Israelis do every day in occupied Palestine and still say, "well I'll need more proof", same with Russia, everything is being blamed on them without any of this proof, I'm by no means pro Russia, but don't you need "proof" to assign blame to any nation?, even Nordstream, I was ridiculed here for suggesting it could have been another party responsible, America and England are being accused now by the Russians, war is a very dirty business, and don't discount false flag attacks by either side, as a pretext for escalation.