It isn't an Airforce, they'll just work together to manage controlling their joint airspace, so you might get Norwegian fighters deploying to deter a potential Russian incursion into Finnish airspace, and visa versa.
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
It isn't an Airforce, they'll just work together to manage controlling their joint airspace, so you might get Norwegian fighters deploying to deter a potential Russian incursion into Finnish airspace, and visa versa.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,465
- Location
- Cheltenham
They’ll be a force, in the air.
So wait what is an airforce? Genuinely intrigued now
Trying to prevent Belarus being invaded after Russia loses the war. The average tanky might think it's a power move from Putin; but it's actually a weak move - it shows he's scared that losing Ukraine means he'll lose Belarus as well
Last edited:
An air force is simply a branch of the armed forces focused on the air, like the navy is focused on sea and the army on land.
The point, I believe, was that this is not a combined Nordic airforce but a coalition of Nordic air forces. Similar to the coalition operations we saw in Libya, Iraq, etc.
It will be more powerful than the lone air forces who make up the coalition are, but nowhere near as powerful as an actual combined airforce.
BMDs (2's or 3's?) from the looks of it. but yeah nice, bit of maintenance and a lick of paint, be good to go!
Last edited:
Challenger 2 and T-55
The T-55/55A was built in 1970s
The British Defence Ministry has announced plans to shrink the country’s overall tank forces by 35%, and to upgrade remaining tanks to the new Challenger 3 standard. The British Army currently fields 450 Challenger 2, of which only 148 will be upgraded with the remainder expected to be retired. There could eventually be room to supply Ukraine with up to 200 retired Challenger 2 and is the worst tank for NATO by far! If we looking to protection, although having a very well armour turret, the Challenger 2’s hull notably uses simple steel armour without composites or explosive reactive armour. This combines poorly the lack of blowout panels or blast doors for ammunition, and means a single hit could cause catastrophic detonations much as was the case with some of Russia’s older tanks like T-72B3s.
Challenger 2 is encumbered by its use of first generation thermal imagers. Although advanced for their time when the class these are much poorer that what is seen even on upgraded Soviet era Russian tanks today. By contrast the T-90M, Russia’s most capable tank, uses third generation thermal sights - two generations ahead of the British.
Russia T-90
Third-generation
Build 1,100
Produced 1992
46 tonnes
2A46M 125 mm smoothbore gun with 43 rounds (T-90)
4.5 million $ (T-90MS)
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,668
Stolen Valor: The U.S. Volunteers in Ukraine Who Lie, Waste and Bicker (Published 2023)
People who would not be allowed anywhere near the battlefield in a U.S.-led war are active on the Ukrainian front, with ready access to American weapons.
It's certainly been interesting watching some of this in real time on Twitter between different people and groups although the article does paint a darker picture than given on Twitter
And “build 1,100”…LMAO
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,668
It's quite clever actually. If it looks like Russia are definitely going to lose and Putin fires a tactical nuke as a last salvo that comes from Hungary, would the US launch a strike on Russian territory risking further escalation? They would be more likely to attack Hungary to take out the remaining nukes. Lukasehnko has put a big target on his country's back
Written by someone who has no idea about the tank.
Last edited:
Hungary?
No use of a tactical nuke would likely see huge conventional strikes against any forward staged tactical weapons and the hammer falling on Putin not a nuclear response in the first instance.
Who mentioned Hungary?
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,668
Pretty easy to end it for Ukraine if you tell them to sue for peace or fight without American equipment I guess
They'll still fight even without US supplies for a while, until the government goes bankrupt
That day is coming anyway, regardless of what trump or anyone else wants. Let's say the next Ukranian offensive is a major failure and they lose lots of equipment without gaining anything- then the political will to keep supplying them will dry up and they'll be pushed for peace.
It's easy to support a winner, not so easy when you're not sure or worse, support a loser. At the start of the war Ukraine had little support in terms of what it needed because everyone thought they were losers but once they started winning battles then the flood gates opened - everyone wants to support a winner especially when it's fighting for good, what a great return on investment. If the investment returns stop because the supplies sent are resulting in no new victories then western governments will start asking if it's time to finish up.
That's why Zelensky pushes so hard now for supplies, because he knows if their momentum dries up then so might future supplies - his job is to keep turning the investment into positive returns by winning more battles against the Russians.
That day is coming anyway, regardless of what trump or anyone else wants. Let's say the next Ukranian offensive is a major failure and they lose lots of equipment without gaining anything- then the political will to keep supplying them will dry up and they'll be pushed for peace.
It's easy to support a winner, not so easy when you're not sure or worse, support a loser. At the start of the war Ukraine had little support in terms of what it needed because everyone thought they were losers but once they started winning battles then the flood gates opened - everyone wants to support a winner especially when it's fighting for good, what a great return on investment. If the investment returns stop because the supplies sent are resulting in no new victories then western governments will start asking if it's time to finish up.
That's why Zelensky pushes so hard now for supplies, because he knows if their momentum dries up then so might future supplies - his job is to keep turning the investment into positive returns by winning more battles against the Russians.
Last edited:
So why didn't he do this while he was POTUS? Russia was occupying Crimea, and he didn't lift a finger to address the issue.
Care to make corrections for us?
- Status