Ukraine-in-a-thread

[Husar]

In response to OP, I say that there's nothing really that anyone can do. If Russia wants to re-annex Ukraine, there is nothing that anyone can do. Do you still remeber those two guys that thought "Hey, let's invade Russia"?

Yeah, I think the Mongolian guy was more successful than the Swede.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I remember a class in security policy I had at George Mason, taught by General Pustay (USAF ACS). He noted that the accepted formula for deterrence of another party could be rendered as follows:

Deterrence = capability * will

Putin does not really doubt our capability.....

[Ironside]

Yeah, I think the Mongolian guy was more successful than the Swede.

Hey, we got invited when we did our tour to Moscow.

That second attempt ended up touring Ukraine.

[TiagoJRToledo]

Yeah, I think the Mongolian guy was more successful than the Swede.

The Russia that Swedes and Mongolians knew isn't the Russia that Napoleon, Hitler and we know. The land mass and the manpower guarantees a war of attrition, and we should know better than to fight Russians with attrition.

[Tellos Athenaios]

No one wants to be allies with a warmonger, but neither do they want to be allies with a total pussy....

Well, the French and the British are still quite happy to go play at soldiers or at least their governments are. The problem with the EU as a military ally of anyone today is not really what it can or cannot do; not even what it will or will not do.

Rather, we have lots of small little armies that don't make much sense (Netherlands, Belgium, etc.), and a few bigger ones that have some real capabilities but not enough to act confidently on their own beyond the immediate vicinity of their own borders (French, UK, Germans). So the EU has scale, has capability but it lacks the economies of scale that the USA or Russia have because there are X chains of command instead of 1, because there are X independent logistics efforts instead of 1 and finally because there are X parliaments and governments to placate instead of 1. That means you cannot rely on the EU to act as a single powerful bloc.

So we're not going berserk just yet because of the repercussions of a semi-successful putsch. The Germans have too much sense to allow it.

[Pannonian]

Yeah, yeah, yeah... Aesop called, he wants his job back.

Skydiving?

[naut]

That means you cannot rely on the EU to act as a single powerful bloc.

Brussels and a single EU Army reform.

Don't tell Farage.

[Brenus]

“Its a battle tested tank that can one-hit-kill anything on the modern battlefield from as far away as the natural curvature of the earth will allow, while on the move, and we have thousands of them.” Can you tell against which modern army having access to the same capacity? The Abrams was proved in battle against T55, 62 and 72 (perhaps 80), with the full advantage of satellite (so knowing were the targets were) and new technology (GPS, computer) and total supremacy on the battle field.
As far a I know, all tank are equipped of one-hit-kill capacity, as it will be very difficult to sell a tank telling that it would need 3 hit to kill the enemy. That would be silly.

“Who cares what the french think about the Abrams?”: Who cared what the French were telling about the WMD? Well, you should have.
The Abram is too big, too slow (according the crew to whom I spoke with), and if you want to fight in a landscape of hills and woodland you will prefer a smaller tank and faster. I was not in Battle Tanks but in APC and was in charge of 2 anti-tank missiles Milan. My job was to destroy 1 tank, run away to the next hill top, do the same etc. The goal was to be not out run by the tanks (and not to be kill as well), reason why we were equipped with APC (because I was in a Mechanised Infantry Regiment). The Soviet tanks at that time were quite speedy and the sheer mass of them was making my life expectancy quite short (I speak of the 80’s): Now, slower and bigger the tank, better for the anti-tank weapons. You can’t shoot what you can’t see. The Israeli discovered that the main distance of engagement for tanks is 600 metres, so a gun able to reach 4 km is very rarely used at this distance.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

“Its a battle tested tank that can one-hit-kill anything on the modern battlefield from as far away as the natural curvature of the earth will allow, while on the move, and we have thousands of them.” Can you tell against which modern army having access to the same capacity? The Abrams was proved in battle against T55, 62 and 72 (perhaps 80), with the full advantage of satellite (so knowing were the targets were) and new technology (GPS, computer) and total supremacy on the battle field.
As far a I know, all tank are equipped of one-hit-kill capacity, as it will be very difficult to sell a tank telling that it would need 3 hit to kill the enemy. That would be silly.

No, that would be WoT.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

http://news.msn.com/world/us-prepare...oubled-ukraine

So the country which is billions (they call them trillions) in debt and which basically gave up on Detroit is now giving 1 billion to Ukraine?

Exactly.

[Brenus]

They might, but their opponents as well.

[Husar]

We should work towards a Russian EU membership. Then our EU army will be mighty and strong.

[Husar]

Any modern tank should be able to one hit kill on the move, 3 or more km out.

By all my love for stabilizers on modern tanks, do you know how just a fraction of a degree difference in the gun angle can affect aiming at these distances? And even the best stabilizer cannot see every bump coming or adjust tank shaking with 100% accuracy. I know there are some other measures such as delayed firing, where the computer delays the firing until the gun is in the right position but I doubt these systems provide laser accuracy on the move out to 3km. Maybe if you're driving on a concrete road or something.

Not to forget that Russian tanks might just shrug the hit off at 3km given the energy loss of the projectile.

Oh and despite the stabilizing fins, projectiles from smoothbore guns do lose a bit of accuracy at extreme distances anyway.

The Abrams is a bit dated, but the gun is still top notch.

Of course, the gun is a german design after all. And yet we have an even toppier and notcher design by now with the L/55.

We have Stryker units equipped with the same gun that serve as mass produced tank destroyers.

The same gun?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1128_Mobile_Gun_System

That one has the 105mm gun based on the British L7, which was also used in the first Abrams models, the M60 and countless other tanks all over the world. Surely a good gun for its time but not exactly top notch any more and certainly not the same.

There's a new magic XM360 120mm gun being tested for the MCS and the Abrams for which I can only find the following propaganda:

The 4,100-pound XM360 is about one-third lighter than the 120mm cannon on the Abrams tank, thanks to a special steel wrapped in composites, yet is designed to hit targets up to 8 kilometers away on the move and up to 12 kilometers while stationary, far more than the Abrams’ 4-kilometer range. Each gun will be expected to fire about 12,000 rounds during its lifespan.

and:

The XM360 is intended to go on the MCS, one of eight 27-ton vehicles under development for the Future Combat System. Putting such a powerful gun on a relatively light vehicle required innovation.

According to this pdf, the MCS is not a Stryker but more of an IFV, more like a replacement for the Bradley with all kinds of fighting vehicle variants:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armamen...ith.pdf‎

That still looks like future stuff though, not something you could deploy in Ukraine tomorrow. And I wonder whether the gun could actually penetrate an MBT at 8-12 kilometers or just crush a truck or an APC.

[Fisherking]

@Brenus


Funny thing about data. Reading the stats the Leclerc is 2.92m height, while the Abrams stands 2.44m high.

The speed of the Abrams is governed at 67kmph, while Leclerc travels at 71kmph.

Perhaps your friends happened to hop on a real dog with clogged filters, or what ever but there just is not that much difference.

The T-90 is 20cm shorter than the Abrams but slower than the western tanks. It mounts a gun-missile system good out to 5km. The US dropped all its AFVs with such a system. The M-1A2 is said to have an anti-ATM system but I am not familiar with it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We should work towards a Russian EU membership. Then our EU army will be mighty and strong.

Appeasement doesn't work.

There are three strategic questions.

1. What does Putin want?

There are three answers:

A: All the Rus - i.e. Ukraine and Belerus.

B: the former Warsaw Pact.

C: As much of the map as possible.

A is most likely, B is plausible but unlikely and C is unlikely, mostly because it would be more trouble to run such a large Empire than it would be to take it. Putin already struggles to rule Russia effectively.

2. Can we stop Putin?

There's only one answer to this - Yes, we can. World War I showed that you don't have to invade the enemy to win, you have to outlast him. Ultimately NATO forces are of better quality and generally better equipped, in a shooting War NATO will come out on top - we also have greater industrial capacity.

3. Is it in our strategic interest to stop him?

This is the real question - and the answer depends on the answer to question 1, arguably we can (strategically) let him have Ukraine, but not any of NATO's members. A successful annexation of Ukraine would result in a new Cold War and a fortification of NATO's border.

That doesn't benefit Putin, currently.

[Brenus]

“That's the point, its the gold standard. Read man...” I did. And we are going to “we will win because we are awesome” to “we might have to fight with an equal enemy”. You carefully avoid answering the question about the former opponents of the Abrams and its battlefields experience because you know that the circumstances were not what a potential Russian War would offer. And it is fair enough.

An operation in Crimea: How many shots did the Russian suffer of: Zero, as much as I am aware. So, imagine US and EU finally succeed to form an army, then in order to avoid more tension just land in Crimea. Who told you that you would be welcome by the locals? They didn’t resist the invasion, these locals, not a shot, even not the Ukrainian soldiers, not a shot. So instead to have, like in Iraq, a welcoming population and tired and low-moral badly leaded armies, you might have to fight a very well under your lines guerrilla with front lines armies at least equivalent of yours, without the disparity, formations and tactics of yours. Unity of command in one side, much more difficult in the other… Mmmhhh… Then you will have the problem of logistic. If you don’t want to escalade, you can’t attack Russian Territory. So, look at a map, and tell me who will have the advantage?

Do you know how the Russian killed a Chechen warlord? They phone him, satellite picked the signal and a laser guided bomb hit him. This could happen to any aircraft carrier in the Black sea or Mediterranean Sea. This could be done from a submarine or a naval base, or even from Russian Main Land: done with the Air cover from the seas. Now, all Russian planes are designed to operate from field airports. They can disperse and change the location at will, so the NATO’s Kosovo tactic won’t apply. And as the Russians know when yours satellites pass over them, just have to move after.

The problem here is not only the need to intervene but we don’t have the means any more. The tactical advantage is Russian. Putin is a better chest player than the Extreme Right Ukrainian Parties.

[Brenus]

"A successful annexation of Ukraine would result in a new Cold War and a fortification of NATO's border." Don't underestimate the appeal of the Wild Gaz...
I remember politicians and businesses swearing they will not invest in China after Tian' Anmen.

[Brenus]

"Reading the stats the Leclerc is 2.92m height, while the Abrams stands 2.44m high" Didn't say the Leclerc was a good tank. Cut in budget...

[TiagoJRToledo]

Appeasement doesn't work.

There are three strategic questions.

1. What does Putin want?

There are three answers:

A: All the Rus - i.e. Ukraine and Belerus.

B: the former Warsaw Pact.

C: As much of the map as possible.

A is most likely, B is plausible but unlikely and C is unlikely, mostly because it would be more trouble to run such a large Empire than it would be to take it. Putin already struggles to rule Russia effectively.

2. Can we stop Putin?

There's only one answer to this - Yes, we can. World War I showed that you don't have to invade the enemy to win, you have to outlast him. Ultimately NATO forces are of better quality and generally better equipped, in a shooting War NATO will come out on top - we also have greater industrial capacity.

3. Is it in our strategic interest to stop him?

This is the real question - and the answer depends on the answer to question 1, arguably we can (strategically) let him have Ukraine, but not any of NATO's members. A successful annexation of Ukraine would result in a new Cold War and a fortification of NATO's border.

That doesn't benefit Putin, currently.

Well, technically Belarus is in as "unofficial" State Union under Russia... And to be honest, what would really be the problem in letting Russia re-annex Ukraine? Rights of the people? Lol, yeah, the EU and the USA really care about the people, just look at Greece and Arizona...

The real problem would be that Russia would control all of the streams from which they export natural gas. And the EU gets this resource mainly from Russia.

If Russia would've invaded Georgia again, I guarantee that the commotion wouldn't be as large as it is now. And btw, everyone already forgot about Syria!

[Beskar]

Crimea River

[TiagoJRToledo]

[Fisherking]

MCS (fcs)
I thought I had heard that the project was canceled, but who knows. They always find ways to spend money.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...nd/fcs-mcs.htm

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armamen...DavidSmith.pdf

Russia
Putin’s goal seems to be rebuilding the Russian Empire via a Eurasian Union much like the European one. Of course he seems more in to coercion than not. Whether this would be a lose federation or just a reconstruction is anyone’s guess.

Some see Russia as a threat, others less so. Putin won’t be leader for ever but maybe for a long time.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Husar, they used to have 120s but they would tip over when fired. On the upside, the 105s allow for an autoloader. They really cant be used as IFVs like other Strykers because the gun mechanism takes up most of the vehicle, and unlike the Abrams it shouldn't fire on the move. I only brought it up to highlight how the Army is still adapting its forces. En masse those would devastate an enemy tank force before being wiped out in short order themselves, or retreating.

One notes that it is a rifled gun - because the 120 smoothbore on the Abrams is, frankly, somewhat sub-par. They were going to mount that same gun on the Challenger - which would have been a shame.

FYI - to date the only thing capable of knocking out a Challenger II Tank is another Challenger II - the combination of rifled gun and superior armour makes it the best combat tank.

[Papewaio]

The other things that can take out a tank, challenger or not:

Helicopter
Plane
Supply Chain
IED

[Empire*Of*Media]

```

[Papewaio]

So if Detroit wants a $1B package all they have to do is say Canada has threatened to invade.

[rvg]

So if Detroit wants a $1B package all they have to do is say Canada has threatened to invade.

Detroit doesn't deserve a penny of federal money. Zip.

[rvg]

I really need to buy that fallout bunker. Or move to Hawaii.

[Papewaio]

Detroit doesn't deserve a penny of federal money. Zip.

You took that away from my one liner? You must be fun at comedy festivals.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The other things that can take out a tank, challenger or not:

Helicopter
Plane
Supply Chain
IED

It has to be a really big IED

and I meant to say, "The only tank..."