Ukraine 10: Lviv free

[Toth]

3 minutes ago, broken one said:

Ive read that Ukraine lacks tanks to effectively counterattack and regain territories, this may be true as Zelensky just asked NATO to give them 1% of alliance's 20k tanks. Technically this should be much easier than in case of planes but I wonder if there will be political will to pass any vehicles. 

What happened to the hundred functional tanks they got from Putin?

Also I'm not really sure whether an open tank battle would be too dangerous and could play into the material strengths of Russia. But sure, vehicles should be easier to give them and I wonder now that the Russians are forced to dig in for a long fight, it is entirely feasible for Ukraine to start training their forces with non-Soviet vehicles in the west.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, broken one said:

Ive read that Ukraine lacks tanks to effectively counterattack and regain territories, this may be true as Zelensky just asked NATO to give them 1% of alliance's 20k tanks. Technically this should be much easier than in case of planes but I wonder if there will be political will to pass any vehicles. 

Give the old Soviet Era T-72s?  That might work.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Toth said:

What happened to the hundred functional tanks they got from Putin?

Also I'm not really sure whether an open tank battle would be too dangerous and could play into the material strengths of Russia. But sure, vehicles should be easier to give them and I wonder now that the Russians are forced to dig in for a long fight, it is entirely feasible for Ukraine to start training their forces with non-Soviet vehicles in the west.

I think the point is that Ukraine is losing tanks and didn’t have that many to begin with.  So… more Tanks would be helpful in pushing back entrenched Russian forces.

[broken one]

1 minute ago, Toth said:

What happened to the hundred functional tanks they got from Putin?

Maybe there are more of them in glorious stories than in physical world.

Ive also read Ukraine lost lots of tanks during last month but skillfully hide the fact. And Russians, because of their propaganda of limited "special operation" cannot boast about it too much. One may find photos of destroyed Ukrainian vehicles and killed soldiers on Russian blogs.

Hard to imagine storming defences with light infantry.

[Loge]

17 minutes ago, broken one said:

Ive read that Ukraine lacks tanks to effectively counterattack and regain territories, this may be true as Zelensky just asked NATO to give them 1% of alliance's 20k tanks. Technically this should be much easier than in case of planes but I wonder if there will be political will to pass any vehicles. Poland still has many T-72 and T-72 upgraded to PT-91 version. 

That figure of 20k tanks sounds inflated. NATO may have had that many during the Cold War but most countries reduced their inventory. Germany is down to 1/10th of what it had then.

[Toth]

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think the point is that Ukraine is losing tanks and didn’t have that many to begin with.  So… more Tanks would be helpful in pushing back entrenched Russian forces.

4 minutes ago, broken one said:

Maybe there are more of them in glorious stories than in physical world.

Yeah, indeed. Even if we take the Ukrainian numbers at face-value, their net-plus of seized vehicles only comes down to 40 tanks at most.

So yeah, I don't think there is any harm in giving them old Soviet vehicles or even some NATO stuff. Like I said before, getting adjusted to those shouldn't be quite as troublesome as with fighter jets where you can't exactly expect to get flight hours in in contested air space.

I'm also thinking we should give them more artillery pieces to pick the Russians apart without having to throw your own troops into too much danger.

[broken one]

3 minutes ago, Loge said:

That figure of 20k tanks sounds inflated.

Yeah, probably. Ive taken the number straight from an article.

Poland has about 800 - 1100 tanks (? I find various numbers ?), including 200 - 300 old T-72. I wonder how many of them are in shape. Ukraine has now far better tanks of T-64 family, still some post soviet stuff would be useful.

[Maithanet]

32 minutes ago, broken one said:

Poland has about 800 - 1100 tanks (? I find various numbers ?), including 200 - 300 old T-72. I wonder how many of them are in shape. Ukraine has now far better tanks of T-64 family, still some post soviet stuff would be useful.

 

49 minutes ago, Toth said:

So yeah, I don't think there is any harm in giving them old Soviet vehicles or even some NATO stuff. Like I said before, getting adjusted to those shouldn't be quite as troublesome as with fighter jets where you can't exactly expect to get flight hours in in contested air space.

Even more so than the MiGs, it is hard to imagine that the Soviet era tanks are really all that precious to any European military.  While Poland (or any other country) might want to use them as leverage to get some newer tanks, it is pretty hard to argue that 30-40 year old tanks are really an integral part of any country's defense.  I'd say a T-72 given to Ukraine to fight Russia right now will do more to keep Poland safe than a T-72 in a warehouse somewhere, waiting to be scrapped. 

[Corvinus85]

Let me armchair my way in this discussion.

Not sure why they can't have APCs or armored trucks with a couple of guys with javelins sitting on top. Have they not played Command & Conquer Generals? The rocket launchers have proven to be the most effective weapon against the Russians. 

[Heartofice]

Just now, Corvinus85 said:

Let me armchair my way in this discussion.

Not sure why they can't have APCs or armored trucks with a couple of guys with javelins sitting on top. Have they not played Command & Conquer Generals? The rocket launchers have proven to be the most effective weapon against the Russians. 

This was kind of my thinking too, and my initial thoughts were based on C&C.. which is where most of my military knowledge comes from. But it does seem that having a lot of low cost, small and easy to manouvre AT weapons, basically nullifies a more expensive heavy tank force (assuming the AT weapons are actually effective against armour)

But then also, from computer games I know you just shoot them from the back or the side! Easy!

[broken one]

5 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

Let me armchair my way in this discussion.

Not sure why they can't have APCs or armored trucks with a couple of guys with javelins sitting on top. Have they not played Command & Conquer Generals? The rocket launchers have proven to be the most effective weapon against the Russians. 

LOL, I think it is about the tank cannon. It is good to have it. btw read that most of Russian vehicle loss was inflicted by traditional artillery and tanks, not javelins. Dunno wether it is true.

[Corvinus85]

2 minutes ago, broken one said:

LOL, I think it is about the tank cannon. It is good to have it. btw read that most of Russian vehicle loss was inflicted by traditional artillery and tanks, not javelins. Dunno wether it is true.

But the Russian tanks (the T-80s and such), for all their revealed weaknesses, do still have good tank armor against tank guns, no? Got to hit them where they're weak.

But yes, artillery likely took out a lot of Russian tanks when they caught them bogged down in the open. If they need to dislodge them from a defensible, urban position artillery may have to just be a last resort.

[broken one]

I am just speculating - tank cannon, depending on ammo, may destroy budildings, fortifications, kill infantry, cause fire...

[Darzin]

21 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

Let me armchair my way in this discussion.

Not sure why they can't have APCs or armored trucks with a couple of guys with javelins sitting on top. Have they not played Command & Conquer Generals? The rocket launchers have proven to be the most effective weapon against the Russians. 

For defeating other tanks it might work, to attack dug in in infrantry tanks of your own will be much better.

[Loge]

Armchair strategists have been claiming that tanks are useless in modern warfare since at least the 1980s but every war since 1990 has proved them wrong. Anti-tank weaponry is good and well, but single purpose, vulnerable, and not very mobile.

[Fez]

14 minutes ago, broken one said:

LOL, I think it is about the tank cannon. It is good to have it. btw read that most of Russian vehicle loss was inflicted by traditional artillery and tanks, not javelins. Dunno wether it is true.

From what I've read, the javelins have had an extraordinarily high effectiveness rate when used by Ukraine; something like over 80% of shots fired have resulted in a destroyed vehicle. However, not many have been used. Whether that's because they haven't gotten many yet, or they're hoarding them for future use, I don't know.

As for using tanks, I wonder how much of it is still psychological? They look big and imposing, so infantry feel more confident advancing when they're around. But artillery and drone/air strikes seem more effective at accomplishing their role.

[Corvinus85]

I am curious how effective those mini-kamikaze drones are that the US is sending them. Have they been used in combat before? Or is the US military very curious as well?

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

I am curious how effective those mini-kamikaze drones are that the US is sending them. Have they been used in combat before? Or is the US military very curious as well?

I believe that they were first used in the Azerbaijan Armenian war, but could be wrong. 

 

Eta, i was wrong - they were first used in Afghanistan almost 10 years ago.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVironment_Switchblade

[Fez]

3 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

I am curious how effective those mini-kamikaze drones are that the US is sending them. Have they been used in combat before? Or is the US military very curious as well?

The Switchblade 300 was used by the US in Afghanistan starting in around 2013. So there's plenty of combat data, although not against quite the same kinds of targets the Russians present.

I don't know if the newer variant, the Switchblade 600, has seen combat. But I'm also not sure if any 600s are being sent.

[Zorral]

Long interview with Masha Gessen, who says the chance of a palace coup and putin removal are "vanishing small," as he is literally a mobster don, with chokehold on everything, and still giving money and other riches to everyone around him in that small circle.  She also says we need to believe he is more than willing to push this war into Europe and the US.  "When the authoritarian speaks, believe him."  "Sanction are a hygienic form for other countries to participate w/o participating.  They aren't about to bring a popular uprising against him."  In the meantime his one major export, gas and oil, aren't affected.

Her qualifications as a judge and analyst:

Quote

Masha Gessen began contributing to The New Yorker in 2014 and became a staff writer in 2017. Gessen is the author of eleven books, including “Surviving Autocracy” and “The Future Is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia,” which won the National Book Award in 2017. Gessen has written about Russia, autocracy, L.G.B.T. rights, Vladimir Putin, and Donald Trump, among others, for The New York Review of Books and the New York Times. On a parallel track, Gessen has been a science journalist, writing about aids, medical genetics, and mathematics; famously, Gessen was dismissed as editor of the Russian popular-science magazine Vokrug Sveta for refusing to send a reporter to observe Putin hang-gliding with the Siberian cranes. Gessen is a Distinguished Writer in Residence at Bard College and the recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship, an Andrew Carnegie Fellowship, a Nieman Fellowship, the Hitchens Prize, and the Overseas Press Club Award for Best Commentary. After more than twenty years as a journalist and editor in Moscow, Gessen has been living in New York since 2013.