User Panel
|
Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest:
View Quote |
|
|
Originally Posted By Jack67: Agreed. 50 is “paltry” - it’s just symbolic. A few hundred would be meaningful, helping to create enough maneuver battalions to really apply pressure. View Quote I just want artillery with enough range to destroy the Russian logistics train. Let the Russians fight with no ammo and no food. |
|
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS
|
Originally Posted By Zam18th: One of the replies https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Flvc4l6XgAEg7Ce?format=jpg&name=small View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Zam18th: Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Flvc4l6XgAEg7Ce?format=jpg&name=small lol
|
|
It's not stupid, it's advanced!!
|
Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest: I think the Ukrainians are training on a Romanian Patriot system, but it's big that 2 of those systems are going in. Nothing concrete on them being in theater yet. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest: Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: Thats kinda big news. Didnt Poland send just 1 battery? I think the Ukrainians are training on a Romanian Patriot system, but it's big that 2 of those systems are going in. Nothing concrete on them being in theater yet. Germany offered to send a Patriot battery to Poland and Poland said you should send it to Ukraine. And then the Germans balked at that. Then fast forward a mouth or so and the US send a battery to Ukraine and now for whatever reason Germany is on board now. Must be overcome with the Christmas spirit. |
|
|
Originally Posted By GTLandser: The Bradley would be a huge step up from the M113 and most BMPs and BTRs, for sure, but the lawyer answer is "it depends". View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By GTLandser: Originally Posted By fervid_dryfire: This would be awesome if it happened. How feasible would it be for a stream of Bradleys to pull off a major flanking maneuver around and set up an eventual retaking of Mariupol, for example? Or what about a lightning push through Crimea, not unlike when Patton stormed through Sicily? Of course, it doesn't have to be those locations; any deep push toward retaking land in places where the Orcs are spread thin would be great. I understand them not wanting to overextend themselves in an offensive, but Ukrainians have proven that they have the guts and ambition to make a move like this, haven't they? The Bradley would be a huge step up from the M113 and most BMPs and BTRs, for sure, but the lawyer answer is "it depends". The answer is "NO." Bradleys will not be a game changer. There is no infantry fighting vehicle that would be a game changer. The TOW cannot be fired on the move, the 25mm has some capability, armor is not sufficient against any tank. If UA tanks beat RU counterparts, Brads are superfluous value added. If RU defending tanks or ATGMs defeat UA tanks, the advance will stop. There isn't a scenario where the Bradley will be the difference between success and failure. The technical requirements for maintenance and repair will be a bear. If we are going to put the Ukrainians through that chaos, then give them what matters: A game changer would be M1 tanks. We have over 2000 in long term storage. A better infantry fighting vehicle with the same tank force isn't much of a difference. IFVs do not, and never have, functioned as a maneuver force independent of armor. This has been explained before. This whole thing is stupid. A battalion of state of the art IFVs will be gobbled up. I cant understand why we would send 50 armored vehicles for ground combat to the Ukrainians and send M2s and not M1s. |
|
|
So Ukraine is getting two Patriot batteries now? Fuck yeah!
And we know those 50 Bradley IFVs are just the tip of the iceberg. First we'll equip a battalion. Then another. Then another. Eventually somewhere down the road they'll end up with enough to equip an entire armored corps. And that is fine by me. Now they just need some F-16s or F-18s and they'll really be able to get the party started. |
|
I stand with Ukraine. Fuck Putin! And fuck Russia!
|
They are still using Scooby Doo vans at the front and can’t assault in many areas for lack of armor. Brad would save a lot of lives just from artillery fire let alone direct fire. Ukraine has over a thousand MBTs but precisely 0 modern IFVs to support them. VAB, BTR-4 and armored F550s aren’t the same.
And don’t tell me that shitty IFVs don’t exist without tanks, I know what Stryker Dragoon thinks it’ll be when it grows up! Ha. |
|
|
Originally Posted By Charging_Handle: So Ukraine is getting two Patriot batteries now? Fuck yeah! And we know those 50 Bradley IFVs are just the tip of the iceberg. First we'll equip a battalion. Then another. Then another. Eventually somewhere down the road they'll end up with enough to equip an entire armored corps. And that is fine by me. Now they just need some F-16s or F-18s and they'll really be able to get the party started. View Quote |
|
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. -Robert J. Hanlon
Fact is stranger than fiction -Mark Twain |
Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest: Surprise! Crews have been training for months.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlrQEkcX0As8iI7?format=png&name=small View Quote Further down the tweet it is confirmed that the pic is the French deploying to Romania. |
|
|
Originally Posted By Lieh-tzu: That's just ugly Ukrainian propaganda, it's more evidence that Ukraine is a Nazi menace. (/sarcasm) View Quote |
|
nothing of value here
|
I am Government Man, come from the government.
PA, USA
|
|
|
Originally Posted By Prime: PMC Wagner shows all the equipment of an American mercenary killed in action in Artmovsk.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FltRTCXXkAE9fOl?format=jpg&name=large View Quote Not blaming you Prime, but that particular picture caption is total misinformation; that dude is alive and well, and the setup for the picture was just a style that was popularized a few years ago (fire truck and full crew laid out, aicraft and full equipment, all done in the same fashion). It was very popular on miltwitter a couple years back. It was just a fun way to show the people and equipment laid out like GI Joes or whatever, with different countries/militaries competing to have bigger and better ones. You can find examples of this being done by a lot of Euro/NATO mil accounts (official ones even). |
|
|
Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest: Now this is interesting, Germany sent the L3 APWKS systems to Ukraine. These are guided rocket anti drone and surface target vehicle. https://www.l3harris.com/sites/default/files/styles/896_x_506/public/2022-04/ims-isr-vampire-product-gallery6.jpg?h=efa77c40&itok=GVhCdwAU
View Quote Everybody's house in Ukraine is going to look like an ARCOMer's basement when this is all over. People will have milsurp blankets in every car trunk, and every dude cutting wood or mowing the lawn will have his "yard work" pairs of faded camo trousers and cutoff shorts. |
|
|
In Every Modern War, Ukraine Has Been the Big Prize
The Eurasian heartland is the axis of what the great geographer Halford Mackinder called the “World-Island.” https://archive.fo/nTlwS With only modest exaggeration, we could call the past 100 years or so the Ukrainian Century, for that country has figured centrally in every great global clash of the modern era. Ukraine is a strategic prize due to resources and geography. Occupying some of the richest agricultural land anywhere, it produces large shares of the world’s wheat, corn and barley; it accounts for 6% of all calories traded on international food markets. Ukraine is Europe’s second-largest country by geographical size, and overlooks the Black Sea, which links European Russia to the world. Most important, Ukraine is the hinge connecting what the great geopolitical thinker Halford Mackinder termed the Eurasian Heartland, with its enormous lands, agricultural riches and energy resources, to the economically advanced countries of Europe. ... “As much as anything, World War I turned on the fate of Ukraine,” the scholar Dominic Lieven wrote. Conquering the area, then part of the Russian empire, was central to Germany’s plans to create a resource-rich Mitteleuropa from the North Sea to the Caucasus. When German armies wrested Ukraine away from a post-revolutionary Russia in 1918, Berlin briefly achieved its Eurasian vision — which crumbled when Germany lost the war on the Western front, thereby undoing its Eastern conquests and allowing Lenin’s Soviet Union to create its own Eurasian empire under Communist rule. Ukraine again loomed large in Adolf Hitler’s dreams of hegemony. It possessed the “living space” and the foodstuffs that could render Germany impregnable against the continent-sized enemies — the British Empire and America — that Hitler ultimately planned to fight for global primacy. The Allied victory ensured merely that Ukraine remained subordinated to a totalitarian Soviet empire. “Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire,” former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski observed in 1994, “but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire.” That’s a good guide to understanding why Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his project to restore Moscow’s mastery, beginning with Russia’s meddling in Ukrainian elections in 2004 and culminating in the full-on invasion in February. Putin targeted Ukraine in hopes of subduing one crucial piece of the post-Soviet landscape, and thereby bringing others, from Belarus to Kazakhstan, into line. A quick Russian victory would have been a testament to the strength and strategic cunning of the world’s autocracies. It would have fundamentally changed the strategic situation in Europe by casting pervasive insecurity from the Black Sea to the Baltic, and left a freshly invigorated Chinese-Russian partnership clearly dominant within Eurasia. Not much has gone according to plan, and a Ukrainian victory would bring very different consequences. It would make one the world’s leading tyrants look pathetic rather than preeminent. It could create tension in Russia’s partnership with China by forcing an enfeebled Putin to beg for assistance that Beijing would be reluctant to give. It would produce a revitalized Western community with a commanding position against a dangerous but degraded Russia. Once again, a war involving Ukraine will shape the contours of world order. The war is also a reminder about how core features of geopolitics remain the same, even as so much in the world changes. Geography still matters. Land-hungry tyrants still seek to dominate their surroundings through conquest and murder. In every generation, optimists hope that the world has left these ugly truths behind. As Ukraine’s experience teaches us, we forget them at our peril. |
|
|
|
nothing of value here
|
Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest:
View Quote Attached File |
|
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
|
Ukrainian music time!
KOZAK SIROMAHA – ?????? 100???? - ?????? (???????? ?????) |
|
|
OT - but for those of you like me who rarely venture into GD anymore, I just saw it by chance and wanted to give you a heads up that long time member IHJ passed away.
https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/IronhandJohn-Deceased-/5-2613174/ |
|
|
Originally Posted By m35ben: BTRs seem to be getting the job done. I don't see why the Stryker wouldn't work with it. View Quote One of those it’s not ideal but better than nothing deals. Strykers deployed how the US does, with towed artillery and no tanks, would be a far cry from ideal. How we spend $5m a piece on something that’s too heavy to deploy and too light to fight is beyond me. |
|
|
“If by chance you were to ask me which ornaments I would desire above all others in my house, I would reply, without much pause for reflection, arms and books.”
Baldassare Castiglione |
Originally Posted By fervid_dryfire: Good points all around. I especially agree that logistical matters could be a serious obstacle, even if Ukraine receives top-notch Bradleys and training before deployment. View Quote Yeah, that's all I was trying to say. I think it is GREAT that 50 Bradleys will be sent initially, but it's not the operation of a couple battalions worth of vehicles that concerns me, the logistics and training does. But, I am sure the Ukrainian staff dudes have gotten a good feel for how to integrate new foreign equipment and train their troops, and just how much they can ask of their units before that balance turns unfavorable (dangerous). They proved that during their earlier offensives; even if those objectives were pared-back under NATO influence, they still did a hell of a lot. |
|
|
Originally Posted By ludder093: Originally Posted By Chokey:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fluo9n-agAAb85q?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fluo9n9akAETHfL?format=jpg&name=large But russians don't target civilians, looks just like whaAleppo.. Russia did in aleppo Syria. |
|
Only God will judge me.
|
Originally Posted By Ryan_Scott: One of those it's not ideal but better than nothing deals. Strykers deployed how the US does, with towed artillery and no tanks, would be a far cry from ideal. How we spend $5m a piece on something that's too heavy to deploy and too light to fight is beyond me. View Quote |
|
nothing of value here
|
View Quote They're supposed to have like 3 prototypes. Sounds like good news, if true, another desperation move. |
|
|
Originally Posted By CharlieR: The answer is "NO." Bradleys will not be a game changer. There is no infantry fighting vehicle that would be a game changer. The TOW cannot be fired on the move, the 25mm has some capability, armor is not sufficient against any tank. If UA tanks beat RU counterparts, Brads are superfluous value added. If RU defending tanks or ATGMs defeat UA tanks, the advance will stop. There isn't a scenario where the Bradley will be the difference between success and failure. The technical requirements for maintenance and repair will be a bear. If we are going to put the Ukrainians through that chaos, then give them what matters: A game changer would be M1 tanks. We have over 2000 in long term storage. A better infantry fighting vehicle with the same tank force isn't much of a difference. IFVs do not, and never have, functioned as a maneuver force independent of armor. This has been explained before. This whole thing is stupid. A battalion of state of the art IFVs will be gobbled up. I cant understand why we would send 50 armored vehicles for ground combat to the Ukrainians and send M2s and not M1s. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By CharlieR: Originally Posted By GTLandser: Originally Posted By fervid_dryfire: This would be awesome if it happened. How feasible would it be for a stream of Bradleys to pull off a major flanking maneuver around and set up an eventual retaking of Mariupol, for example? Or what about a lightning push through Crimea, not unlike when Patton stormed through Sicily? Of course, it doesn't have to be those locations; any deep push toward retaking land in places where the Orcs are spread thin would be great. I understand them not wanting to overextend themselves in an offensive, but Ukrainians have proven that they have the guts and ambition to make a move like this, haven't they? The Bradley would be a huge step up from the M113 and most BMPs and BTRs, for sure, but the lawyer answer is "it depends". The answer is "NO." Bradleys will not be a game changer. There is no infantry fighting vehicle that would be a game changer. The TOW cannot be fired on the move, the 25mm has some capability, armor is not sufficient against any tank. If UA tanks beat RU counterparts, Brads are superfluous value added. If RU defending tanks or ATGMs defeat UA tanks, the advance will stop. There isn't a scenario where the Bradley will be the difference between success and failure. The technical requirements for maintenance and repair will be a bear. If we are going to put the Ukrainians through that chaos, then give them what matters: A game changer would be M1 tanks. We have over 2000 in long term storage. A better infantry fighting vehicle with the same tank force isn't much of a difference. IFVs do not, and never have, functioned as a maneuver force independent of armor. This has been explained before. This whole thing is stupid. A battalion of state of the art IFVs will be gobbled up. I cant understand why we would send 50 armored vehicles for ground combat to the Ukrainians and send M2s and not M1s. Greetings Charlie! I respectfully disagree. You are clearly a historian of past tank battles; AWC grad maybe? Historically, you could be right. But: - Ukraine is not fighting the Russian army of 1940. Ukraine is not even fighting the Russian army. They are fighting Putin’s army in 2022-2023. Putin is pure FSB. Putin replaced the top Russian military planers with FSB goons (just as Putin replaced the corrupt Russian oligarchs with even more corrupt FSB oligarchs). The FSB is primarily running this sh*t show, and it shows. As for the current “military,” look who Putin favors? : - Chechens and Wagner PMC. Do you think either group are adept tank tacticians? The remaining Russian army sees all this, and their heart is not in this fight (with or without tanks). As a result, look how they deploy their tanks: - tanks lobbing rounds as indirect fire (with little effect, no surprise) - hull down in defensive static positions - tanks sent out without officers, because the officers fled to the safety of the rear areas (and if your CO flees, how dedicated would you be to an advance?). - Mobiks who had a 1/2 day of training on a T-72 ten years ago are suddenly behind the gun and controls of the T-72s - Mobiks who have been literally welded inside their tanks to stop them from fleeing - Mobiks who are increasingly caught playing “radio games” where they drive their tank out of sight, yell into the radio for 15 minutes pretending they are attacking the Ukrainians while just sitting there, and then returning safely to base The Russians misuse their assets and lose them easily as a result Not to mention: - the T-72 has proven to be no match against: - Javalin - N-LAW - Stugna P And several others. The T-72 always loses. And , The TOW has a proven record destroying T-72s in Iraq. Unmotivated Mobiks are no match against people fighting to save their own wives, daughters and homes from the invaders. Plus, Western trainers and tacticians are training the Ukrainians. Notice how reserved the UA has been with their tank assets? They came out to assault and retake Kherson. Then they went back into hiding, so as not to fall prey to Russian air power. They use their armor carefully and correctly. The Russians: not so much. Given these new variables, the Bradleys will prevail over the T-72s (and T-62s) Russia is carelessly throwing into this fight. |
|
|
Originally Posted By Lieh-tzu: I would rather the US made many fewer public announcements. Let the results be shown on the battlefield. The world will see an know soon enough. I'm not sure what the advantage is in making public announcements for every equipment delivery. View Quote There will be weeks and months of training, so videos and pics were always likely to come out anyway, and it doesn't make a fundamental (tactical or operational) difference. Especially since a lot of the training is likely going to take place in Germany, where media secrecy like that is frowned upon. The only small hope that making the announcement had, is that with each succeeding one, Putin realizes he is only getting more fucked with every passing day, and it would be simpler for him to withdraw (but then Putin never cared anyway, and he wouldn't hold anything over which to negotiate). So we're doing the "rational" international political thing, which is fine, but since we know Putin is insane, the best we can hope for is that other people in his orbit pick up what we are putting down, and do the needful. Save us all a lot of effort. |
|
|
ATTMs are more effective in defense than offense. At this point it’s clear that barring a loss of supplies Ukraine can hold the line, the question is more about attacking.
|
|
|
|
|
“If by chance you were to ask me which ornaments I would desire above all others in my house, I would reply, without much pause for reflection, arms and books.”
Baldassare Castiglione |
Originally Posted By Dominion21: Greetings Charlie! I respectfully disagree. You are clearly a historian of past tank battles; AWC grad maybe? Historically, you could be right. But: - Ukraine is not fighting the Russian army of 1940. Ukraine is not even fighting the Russian army. They are fighting Putin’s army in 2022-2023. Putin is pure FSB. Putin replaced the top Russian military planers with FSB goons (just as Putin replaced the corrupt Russian oligarchs with even more corrupt FSB oligarchs). The FSB is primarily running this sh*t show, and it shows. As for the current “military,” look who Putin favors? : - Chechens and Wagner PMC. Do you think either group are adept tank tacticians? The remaining Russian army sees all this, and their heart is not in this fight (with or without tanks). As a result, look how they deploy their tanks: - tanks lobbing rounds as indirect fire (with little effect, no surprise) - hull down in defensive static positions - tanks sent out without officers, because the officers fled to the safety of the rear areas (and if your CO flees, how dedicated would you be to an advance?). - Mobiks who had a 1/2 day of training on a T-72 ten years ago are suddenly behind the gun and controls of the T-72s Not to mention: - the T-72 has proven to be no match against: - Javalin - N-LAW - Stugna P And several others. The T-72 always loses. And , The TOW has a proven record destroying T-72s in Iraq. Unmotivated View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Dominion21: Originally Posted By CharlieR: Originally Posted By GTLandser: Originally Posted By fervid_dryfire: This would be awesome if it happened. How feasible would it be for a stream of Bradleys to pull off a major flanking maneuver around and set up an eventual retaking of Mariupol, for example? Or what about a lightning push through Crimea, not unlike when Patton stormed through Sicily? Of course, it doesn't have to be those locations; any deep push toward retaking land in places where the Orcs are spread thin would be great. I understand them not wanting to overextend themselves in an offensive, but Ukrainians have proven that they have the guts and ambition to make a move like this, haven't they? The Bradley would be a huge step up from the M113 and most BMPs and BTRs, for sure, but the lawyer answer is "it depends". The answer is "NO." Bradleys will not be a game changer. There is no infantry fighting vehicle that would be a game changer. The TOW cannot be fired on the move, the 25mm has some capability, armor is not sufficient against any tank. If UA tanks beat RU counterparts, Brads are superfluous value added. If RU defending tanks or ATGMs defeat UA tanks, the advance will stop. There isn't a scenario where the Bradley will be the difference between success and failure. The technical requirements for maintenance and repair will be a bear. If we are going to put the Ukrainians through that chaos, then give them what matters: A game changer would be M1 tanks. We have over 2000 in long term storage. A better infantry fighting vehicle with the same tank force isn't much of a difference. IFVs do not, and never have, functioned as a maneuver force independent of armor. This has been explained before. This whole thing is stupid. A battalion of state of the art IFVs will be gobbled up. I cant understand why we would send 50 armored vehicles for ground combat to the Ukrainians and send M2s and not M1s. Greetings Charlie! I respectfully disagree. You are clearly a historian of past tank battles; AWC grad maybe? Historically, you could be right. But: - Ukraine is not fighting the Russian army of 1940. Ukraine is not even fighting the Russian army. They are fighting Putin’s army in 2022-2023. Putin is pure FSB. Putin replaced the top Russian military planers with FSB goons (just as Putin replaced the corrupt Russian oligarchs with even more corrupt FSB oligarchs). The FSB is primarily running this sh*t show, and it shows. As for the current “military,” look who Putin favors? : - Chechens and Wagner PMC. Do you think either group are adept tank tacticians? The remaining Russian army sees all this, and their heart is not in this fight (with or without tanks). As a result, look how they deploy their tanks: - tanks lobbing rounds as indirect fire (with little effect, no surprise) - hull down in defensive static positions - tanks sent out without officers, because the officers fled to the safety of the rear areas (and if your CO flees, how dedicated would you be to an advance?). - Mobiks who had a 1/2 day of training on a T-72 ten years ago are suddenly behind the gun and controls of the T-72s Not to mention: - the T-72 has proven to be no match against: - Javalin - N-LAW - Stugna P And several others. The T-72 always loses. And , The TOW has a proven record destroying T-72s in Iraq. Unmotivated I agree. Bradley's will be a huge upgrade to Ukraines combined arms assaults, paired with ukraines tanks and trained properly they will use them with outstanding results. Tank assaults backed by infantry in Bradley's are going to be a huge welcome in the upcoming spring offensives |
|
Only God will judge me.
|
Originally Posted By SoCalExile: Are they really bad at it or are they so anal retentive that everything is a deadline? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By SoCalExile: Are they really bad at it or are they so anal retentive that everything is a deadline? Originally Posted By SoCalExile: Are they really bad at it or are they so anal retentive that everything is a deadline? I am just guessing here, but I think the issue with the Bundeswehr and other Europ military isn't that their stuff isn't good, or that the wear items (tracks, engines, transmissions, whatever) need repair or replacement at (much) worse intervals than American stuff; it is that historically (last 20+ years) they haven't operated their equipment at anything like a wartime tempo, AND just as importantly, didn't purchase those spare parts or wear items in the quantities required to maintain acceptable (for combat) OR rates. The clearest evidence I can see of this is that the Estonians have been helping the Ukrainians to refurbish their worn-down PzH2000 SPGs. So now the Pumas are being exercised at realistic rates for the first time, and all the back-end stuff just isn't there. Imagine you send one back to depot, and not only is there not a spare part waiting for it there, but there is no fresh vehicle to back fill the losing unit, AND the throughput of the depot (for whatever task or part) hasn't appreciably changed except perhaps to get slower and worse in 20 years! So Olaf Schulz has beclowned himself plenty, but he may also just be the last Chancellor who found himself without a chair, and everyone has finally decided they can't keep humming a tune and insisting that the music is still on. |
|
|
Originally Posted By YaNi05: Germany offered to send a Patriot battery to Poland and Poland said you should send it to Ukraine. And then the Germans balked at that. Then fast forward a mouth or so and the US send a battery to Ukraine and now for whatever reason Germany is on board now. Must be overcome with the Christmas spirit. View Quote The US was probably telling them no patriots to ukr |
|
|
Originally Posted By Prime:
View Quote RIM-7 Sea Sparrow: - 21.8 mile range - 2,645 miles per hour impact velocity - 90 lb explosive warhead |
|
|
|
|
“If by chance you were to ask me which ornaments I would desire above all others in my house, I would reply, without much pause for reflection, arms and books.”
Baldassare Castiglione |
|
Originally Posted By CharlieR: The answer is "NO." Bradleys will not be a game changer. There is no infantry fighting vehicle that would be a game changer. The TOW cannot be fired on the move, the 25mm has some capability, armor is not sufficient against any tank. If UA tanks beat RU counterparts, Brads are superfluous value added. If RU defending tanks or ATGMs defeat UA tanks, the advance will stop. There isn't a scenario where the Bradley will be the difference between success and failure. The technical requirements for maintenance and repair will be a bear. If we are going to put the Ukrainians through that chaos, then give them what matters: A game changer would be M1 tanks. We have over 2000 in long term storage. A better infantry fighting vehicle with the same tank force isn't much of a difference. IFVs do not, and never have, functioned as a maneuver force independent of armor. This has been explained before. This whole thing is stupid. A battalion of state of the art IFVs will be gobbled up. I cant understand why we would send 50 armored vehicles for ground combat to the Ukrainians and send M2s and not M1s. View Quote I largely agree with you. I think the M1 would be a game changer. But I don't even know if the US has the capacity to not only refurb all this equipment, but to put a bunch of foreign students (at all levels) through the months of training that would be required (assuming the goal was to wind up with something that looked like a US CAB or HBCT, manned by Ukrainians). You already know this, but I encourage other posters to look at the org chart for a Forward Support Battalion. It's not small, and it's not cheap. I am hoping that 50 is just the first batch (and that it was decided based on the absorption capacity of either the UA, or the US training infrastructure in Germany vs all other requirements). If that wasn't the thought process, then it certainly appears piecemeal. |
|
|
Originally Posted By CharlieR: The answer is "NO." Bradleys will not be a game changer. There is no infantry fighting vehicle that would be a game changer. The TOW cannot be fired on the move, the 25mm has some capability, armor is not sufficient against any tank. If UA tanks beat RU counterparts, Brads are superfluous value added. If RU defending tanks or ATGMs defeat UA tanks, the advance will stop. There isn't a scenario where the Bradley will be the difference between success and failure. The technical requirements for maintenance and repair will be a bear. If we are going to put the Ukrainians through that chaos, then give them what matters: A game changer would be M1 tanks. We have over 2000 in long term storage. A better infantry fighting vehicle with the same tank force isn't much of a difference. IFVs do not, and never have, functioned as a maneuver force independent of armor. This has been explained before. This whole thing is stupid. A battalion of state of the art IFVs will be gobbled up. I cant understand why we would send 50 armored vehicles for ground combat to the Ukrainians and send M2s and not M1s. View Quote Could the Bradleys be helpful if integrated correctly with the tanks that Ukraine already has? |
|
When being irresponsible becomes painful again, we might be able to make some progress in this country.
|
Originally Posted By Jack67: Rumored US will announce a paltry 50 Brads for Ukraine tomorrow. Everyone now rushing around talking about “tanks” for Ukraine. Might be a good time to review what actually constitutes a “tank.” Here’s a helpful matrix: ;) https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/556465/2940D096-F753-448E-98F7-3A866B78B130_jpe-2661438.JPG View Quote I like it! |
|
|
Maniac has responded with a scornful remark
USA
|
Originally Posted By Dominion21: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/essm-image3.jpg They have somehow managed to adapt these to launch from this: BUK http://www.military-today.com/missiles/buk.jpg https://gdb-rferl-org.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/gdb.rferl.org/6860E25E-12A2-498F-80B4-6D96F45FF4B9_w1080_r0.png Ukraine started the war with at least 72 of these launch vehicles. View Quote I was amazed when they put HARMs on Flankers. I will be gobsmacked when a Sparrow is used by an SA-17. |
|
North Caucasus volunteers in Bakhmut.
|
|
“If by chance you were to ask me which ornaments I would desire above all others in my house, I would reply, without much pause for reflection, arms and books.”
Baldassare Castiglione |
Mental exercise.
Imagine a Ukrainian combined arms battalion. Assume it has 11 tanks, take your pick of T64s, T72s, T80s, and a mix of former Warsaw Pack and some Western APC and IFVs. Mostly BMPs, maybe some add on M113s, and or BTR-4s. We will call this COA #1 the baseline, and give it an effectiveness of 1.0. COA#2. Replace the IFVs and APCs with Bradleys COA#3. Replace the tanks with M1s. COA#4. Replace the whole task org with US M1s and M2s. I would say the big sticking point is going to be maintenance training, which is now a charlie foxtrot because a year ago we sat around and moaned about how hard it is, as opposed to training UA mechanics and getting on with it. Which is DoD just sucking. COA 2 is better then COA 1. But I doubt it is twice as good. It would be 50% better in the defense, and a little less, maybe 40% better in the offense becauTOW On the move; in my experience teh diesel is loud as hell and it is tall and armor is thin....and if the UA tanks get nailed the IFVs are not going to significantly create some miracle above what COA 1 would do. COA 4 might well be a game changer. COA 3 is far superior to COA 2. COA 3 is absolutely positively much better then 2, and I question why the hell, with 2500 tanks in depot, anybody in the US DoD with a brain would pick 2 over 3. If we are going to dip our toes in the water and give 50 brads, then 200 brads, then 50 M2s, the 200 M1s, we need to stop screwing around. I am trying to think of a mech battle where one side had better tanks and the other side had better IFVs, and the better IFV side prevailed somehow....I dont think it has ever happened. Tanks and AT maybe, and I would take M1s, javelins, and scooby doo mystery machines over bradleys and all else stays the same... |
|
|
I don't think you understand how dangerous a Bradley is.
They have thermal sights on every single one of them. The Russians didn't even start putting TI onto tanks until the post-fall 2000s using French TI sights on the T-90! |
|
|
Maybe UA simply requested some IFVs.
|
|
|
U.S. thinks Putin ally Prigozhin wants control of salt, gypsum from mines near Bakhmut
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-thinks-putin-ally-prigozhin-wants-control-salt-gypsum-mines-near-bakhmut-2023-01-05/ WASHINGTON, Jan 5 (Reuters) - The United States is of the view that Russian President Vladimir Putin's ally Yevgeny Prigozhin, who is the founder of Russia's most powerful mercenary group, is interested in taking control of salt and gypsum from mines near the Ukrainian-held city of Bakhmut, a White House official said on Thursday. There are indications that monetary motives are driving Russia's and Prigozhin's "obsession" with Bakhmut, the official added. Prigozhin is the owner of private Russian military company Wagner Group. |
|
“If by chance you were to ask me which ornaments I would desire above all others in my house, I would reply, without much pause for reflection, arms and books.”
Baldassare Castiglione |
Originally Posted By borderpatrol: <Exactly. Russia should discover it after the fact. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By borderpatrol: Originally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest: And Here we go!
I would rather the US made many fewer public announcements. Let the results be shown on the battlefield. The world will see an know soon enough. I'm not sure what the advantage is in making public announcements for every equipment delivery. <Exactly. Russia should discover it after the fact. Turns out that pic is from last year but your point is spot on, as are a few replies from that tweet- and apparently Romania is doing it the right way Attached File |
|
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it."
-Mark Twain |
Originally Posted By Zam18th: OT - but for those of you like me who rarely venture into GD anymore, I just saw it by chance and wanted to give you a heads up that long time member IHJ passed away. https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/IronhandJohn-Deceased-/5-2613174/ View Quote |
|
It's not stupid, it's advanced!!
|
Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: That all sounds like typical basic training in Russia. Except the hanging. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: Originally Posted By lorazepam: Damn.
That all sounds like typical basic training in Russia. Except the hanging. No ammo for his rifle? Who hangs themselves when a painless way is right there, fake Propaganda |
|
Wife: " Let me know when I have to post the orange diamond #4 signs on the house."
|
|
|
“If by chance you were to ask me which ornaments I would desire above all others in my house, I would reply, without much pause for reflection, arms and books.”
Baldassare Castiglione |
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit: I was amazed when they put HARMs on Flankers. I will be gobsmacked when a Sparrow is used by an SA-17. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By SmilingBandit: Originally Posted By Dominion21: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/essm-image3.jpg They have somehow managed to adapt these to launch from this: BUK http://www.military-today.com/missiles/buk.jpg https://gdb-rferl-org.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/gdb.rferl.org/6860E25E-12A2-498F-80B4-6D96F45FF4B9_w1080_r0.png Ukraine started the war with at least 72 of these launch vehicles. I was amazed when they put HARMs on Flankers. I will be gobsmacked when a Sparrow is used by an SA-17. Same, I am genuinely surprised. |
|
It's not stupid, it's advanced!!
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.