Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
You would think by now that the west would be all in to prevent 'might is right'. But several months later we are still dithering supplying certain arms in fear of escalation, let alone contemplating assistance. If this war goes bad for the west it cannot but escalate.
 
ubersonic said:
On a more serious note though, it's nice that France are trying but I'm not so sure that sending a 50+ year old light tank into a battlefield where it can be destroyed by practically anything the enemy will fire at it is such a great idea. Hopefully if Ukraine use it well it will prove useful to them though.
Click to expand...

Yeah - Ukraine is crying out for more artillery but even there it's main gun is relatively limited in application. Ukraine definitely needs something more modern. All I can really see it used for is supporting infantry who are setup to block flanking, etc. attempts.
 
White House:
- It Is Looking at Ways to Target Iranian UAV Production Through Sanctions, Export Controls, and Talking to Private Companies Whose Parts Have Been Used in Production
- It Is Assessing Further Steps It Can Take In Terms of Export Controls to Restrict Iran’s Access to Technologies Used in Drones
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-lo...drone-production-white-house-says-2023-01-04/

*Biden Says Bradley Fighting Vehicles Are on the Table for Ukraine - Reuters
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
Wheel tanks are OP, just ask anyone on the World of Tanks forums.

On a more serious note though, it's nice that France are trying but I'm not so sure that sending a 50+ year old light tank into a battlefield where it can be destroyed by practically anything the enemy will fire at it is such a great idea. Hopefully if Ukraine use it well it will prove useful to them though.
Click to expand...
I feel this is more of a symbolic gesture to prompt other western nations to send over non Ex-Soviet bloc armour. starting the ball rolling that will hopefully lead to Leopards and Abrams.
The AMX-10's might not be game changers but I'm sure Ukraine will happily take them and put them to use. They have found life and genuine use for all the other NATO cast-off equipment regardless of its supposed usefulness.
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
On a more serious note though, it's nice that France are trying but I'm not so sure that sending a 50+ year old light tank into a battlefield where it can be destroyed by practically anything the enemy will fire at it is such a great idea. Hopefully if Ukraine use it well it will prove useful to them though.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking it's actually the "updated" RCR version, modernised in the late 00's, thats being sent as these were only just taken out of French service and one of their "advantages" is the Battle Management System (BMS) fitted which allows the commander to view an electronic map of the area with known enemy locations, which is updated on the move without having to wait for the info to flow up to HQ and then back via radio to each commander. It makes battlefield comms way easier and allows even low-level commanders some increased flexibility in local combat.

I mean it's still a wheeled, thinly armoured car at the end of the day, and virtually anything "anti-tank" can kill it easily, but it's got a lot of sneaky mobility (being wheeled), quiet compared to tracked vehicles and with a decent infantry support gun or (worse case) an OK-ish up close anti-tank gun.

I still wouldn't want to be in the front lines with one but I'd be happy to have one support me if I was in a trench somewhere.
 
ianh said:
I mean it's still a wheeled, thinly armoured car at the end of the day, and virtually anything "anti-tank" can kill it easily, but it's got a lot of sneaky mobility (being wheeled), quiet compared to tracked vehicles and with a decent infantry support gun or (worse case) an OK-ish up close anti-tank gun.
Click to expand...

In this respect it can be quite useful for Ukraine - who've taken to meeting Russia's recon by combat attempts with small, mobile, hard hitting forces rather than engage them with their larger deployed forces.
 
rumple9 said:
Russia has a massive arms industry - The eastern powers aren't going to buy jack from them after this war is over
Click to expand...
TBH with the rate they're burning though Iskanders I wouldn't be surprised if Russia pull their Scud launchers out of storage and start buying Scud-C copies from Iran, North Korea and Yemen rebels lol. That or start building Scuds again as they must be cheaper to build than Iskanders (well obviously if Yemen rebels are literally building them in caves) and the extra accuracy of Iskanders isn't really needed if you're just lobbing them towards Ukrainian cities :(
 
ubersonic said:
TBH with the rate they're burning though Iskanders I wouldn't be surprised if Russia pull their Scud launchers out of storage and start buying Scud-C copies from Iran, North Korea and Yemen rebels lol. That or start building Scuds again as they must be cheaper to build than Iskanders (well obviously if Yemen rebels are literally building them in caves) and the extra accuracy of Iskanders isn't really needed if you're just lobbing them towards Ukrainian cities :(
Click to expand...

I laugh but I'm surprised they've not taken to more indiscriminate, sustained barrages against places like Kharkiv, etc. though I think they still want to keep up some pretence at the moment that this isn't just an indiscriminate war.
 
ubersonic said:
I don't mean to be rude here but this just isn't wrong it's very naive.

A lot of people in this thread seem to fail to understand that the idea/concept of nuclear weapons (and the associated taboos) is completely different in the west to the rest of the world. Here in the west when most of us think of nuclear weapons we tend to think of an enormous fireball/mushroom cloud vaporising a city/island and oh-my-god the humanity, but those strategic nuclear weapons are not the only type of nuclear weapon, there are also tactical nukes. Tactical nukes are significantly smaller, I.E a nuclear tipped torpedo capable of eradicating a whole battleship/carrier with one hit, a nuclear SAM capable of downing an entire bomber formation, a nuclear tipped artillery shell capable of doing damage almost comparable to carpet bombing or even a precision missile capable of destroying a fortified bunker/building in one hit.

For us the two get lumped together and we generally think the use of any nuclear weapons is an unthinkable taboo, however in the former USSR and China (and NK) there is a much stronger mental detachment between strategic and tactical weapons. In these states using these weapons has much less stigma/taboo with military leaders and the public, and in some cases it's even seen as pragmatic (I.E if a tactical nuke is almost as good as sending bombers but you don't have the air superiority to send bombers it's a cost saver). It's worth noting that even in the west the use of tactical nukes is much less unpopular with generals/politicians than it is with the public, hell the entire reason the USA developed the MOAB thermobaric vacuum bomb was because they wanted the functional ability to drop tactical nukes the middle east without any of the political fallout (no pun intended) using actual tactical nukes would generate. Russia of course created their own more powerful version of the MOAB (Called the FOAB), which of course they couldn't afford to build in great numbers. However they can't reliably use their FOABs against Ukraine as the have to be dropped from bombers and if they could send in bombers they would be bombing and there would be no need for them to consider the extra expense of tactical nukes, however as mentioned above when bombing would see your bombers shot down then TNs become much more attractive from both a financial and effectiveness POV.

Many older posters may remember the infamous apocalyptic TV Movie "Threads" from the 80s? In that the thing that turned a tense situation into WW3 was when NATO sent B-52 bombers to hit a Soviet base in Iran and the Soviets defended the base with a nuclear tipped anti-air missile. It was and still is a very real example of how the differing western//non-western approaches to TNs can result in the west being surprised by others willingness to use them (for reference all of the USSRs cold war battle plans involved TNs, all of them).

When Xi says the use of nuclear weapons is a no go and Putin shouldn't even be saber rattling about them, and people think "ooh Russia can't afford to use them or they'll lose China's support" they're wrong, he's not referring to all nuclear weapons he's referring purely to strategic weapons he just isn't being specific because of the aforementioned difference in western/non-western mentality towards TNs (especially as he knows taking Taiwan may well require him to use TNs).

It's also important to note that this difference in mentality didn't magically move from the middle of Germany to the Russia/Ukraine border the day the USSR collapsed, if Ukraine still had tactical nukes and it had looked like all was lost in the early days of the war then there's a good chance they would have started flying towards Russian military targets. But obviously if Ukraine still had nukes they would never have been invaded in the first place, hell if they hadn't scrapped their Scuds a decade ago (at the behest of the USA who wanted to score points with Putin /Facepalm) they would have been safe (thanks Obama).
Click to expand...

Actually it’s more involved.
1. China trade with countries other than russia.
2. a TN use would then not be judged on what china/russia consider acceptable but what china’s trade partners deem acceptable.
3. China has severe economical issues so any economic shock would see that problem worsen.
4. Russia - Iran is because Iran smells money to be made from it’s drones etc. Iran has traditionally been a russian defence buyer. Iran is a chinese trade partner for oil so there is some jossling for who fuels china’s manufacturing. If russia are undercutting iranian oil to china, and iran will want to buy chinese military equipment due to the russian performance. I suspect that shock gas oil countries in opec costing up to china.

The issue with tactical nukes is they are hard to deploy and use. The troops need experience training. Accidents would end up in expanding the war, escalating it. Accidentally misplacing one (or being siezed) arms the Ukrainians that could use it in a truck and claim plausible denal as a russian accident.
 
(Reuters) - Ukraine's military estimated that 800 Russian soldiers were killed in the past day, mostly in fighting in the eastern Donetsk region,
- Ukraine's military said Russian forces were focused on an offensive in the Bakhmut sector and its attacks in the Avdiivka and Kupiansk sectors were unsuccessful.
- The Ukrainian deputy defence minister said significant Russian losses meant Moscow would likely have to announce a second partial mobilisation in the first quarter of the year.

NATO’s Stoltenberg:
- It’s Dangerous to Underestimate Russia
- We Need More Soldiers, More Ammunition, More Weapons
- Our Trade With China Must Not Undermine Our Security
 
Last edited:
NickK said:
...
The issue with tactical nukes is they are hard to deploy and use. The troops need experience training. Accidents would end up in expanding the war, escalating it. Accidentally misplacing one (or being siezed) arms the Ukrainians that could use it in a truck and claim plausible denal as a russian accident.
Click to expand...

The thing with tactical nuclear weapons is that once you have used one, you might as well go again.

Missed from your list: a large deployment of tactical nuclear weapons gives Russia plausible deniability about nuclear proliferation, and an income stream, in future.
 
Rroff said:
In some ways it isn't a bad idea - there is higher ground surrounding Bakhmut on the Ukrainian side and the way Russia would have to push out from there - which would given a commanding position over Bakhmut turning it into a kill zone. In terms of war of attrition though this current situation is probably bleeding Russia far more than it is Ukraine and the loss of Bakhmut (hopefully) isn't the end of the world for Ukraine assuming they've taken steps to reduce the amount they were using it as a hub.
Click to expand...
They cant lose Bakhmut, its not only a key road position but it's also a key artillery position.

The arty there can hit anywhere there is fighting, it's being fought so hard over for a reason.
 
Quite a lot of eyes on Belarus today - dunno if more missile or drone launches expected.

Interestingly a flight of F-15s on approach to the Ukraine border, not sure what that is about but quite a lot of US hardware has been moving through Poland the last 24 hours assumedly to supply Ukraine.
 
Rroff said:
Yeah - Ukraine is crying out for more artillery but even there it's main gun is relatively limited in application. Ukraine definitely needs something more modern. All I can really see it used for is supporting infantry who are setup to block flanking, etc. attempts.
Click to expand...
Hopefully with the addition of JDAMS for Ukraine's airforce that will take some of the pressure of the artillery batteries and allow for more fire and maneuver warfare that we see in the west.
 
Freddie1980 said:
Hopefully with the addition of JDAMS for Ukraine's airforce that will take some of the pressure of the artillery batteries and allow for more fire and maneuver warfare that we see in the west.
Click to expand...

With the amount of portable and mobile anti-air systems in the field on both sides, not necessarily very well integrated into the chain of command, I suspect Ukraine will only make conservative use of their airforce for awhile.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom