Caveat up front: I have not been officially briefed on the progress of the war for over a year. That was before the last two counteroffensives were successful, and the U.S. assessments at the time were that Ukraine was smoking crack if they thought they could pull off such an operation. So all you’re getting here is my personal assessment, which I’ve kind of stated before. Ukraine’s objective is not necessarily to capture ground, though of course they will if they can. Their objective appears to be causing maximum damage to Russia’s army in the field, whether that opportunity presents itself on offense or defense. So if they’re going for Bakhmut, then it’s because that’s the opportunity to hurt Russia the most morally, not because the ground itself holds value. The way you’ll know Ukraine is showing remarkable progress is when the Russian information campaign of “Meh, we didn’t want that ground anyway. We weren’t really fighting for it” starts popping up again like it did last fall.
based on everything I’m reading I agree with this. And Ukraine has been causing serious damage. The addition of long range weapons has, imo, changed their calculus.
Both off topic and extremely on topic. Listening to this The Making of Modern Ukraine: 15: Ukrainization, Famine, Terror: 1920s – 1930s on Apple Podcasts
Biden needs to get off his arse and release ATACMS unless we are short on our own inventory or production lead time is unacceptable. Neither one would reflect well on the military. No reason to continue to put Ukranian lives at risk because we won't supply these and F-16's. Biden gets an F on this and it is hurting their operations and costing them lives. Britain stepped up with the storm shadow, past time we gave them more tools to defend themselves US Congress resolution urges Biden to provide ATACMS missiles to Ukraine (yahoo.com) Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Michael McCaul, stated that if the United States fails to provide Ukraine with all necessary weaponry, it would contribute to prolonging the conflict. “The success of the Ukrainian counter-offensive is directly linked to the military assistance provided by the United States and our allies,” McCaul said. “Therefore, it is extremely unfortunate that the administration is withholding billions of dollars in military funding that could have been immediately transferred to Ukraine, thereby significantly aiding its Armed Forces in altering the situation on the battlefield.” The resolution highlights that the United States and its allied nations collectively possess thousands of ATACMS missiles.
I’m all for that, but even if this was approved today, it wouldn’t have any impact of the current operation. We would be talking about the next operation or the one after that.
ATACMS is just a short range ballistic missile, it's nice to have but not a game changer. Its also not that advanced, and it's pretty expensive. We don't make them anymore so any used would be one less in our stock. The issue is that our doctrine doesn't require the army to do long distance strikes, we use our airforce. What I'm more puzzled by is why aren't we giving Ukraine more Abrahms tanks? We have a lot in storage, and even older ones with their smaller caliber guns can be very useful as tanks in this war are mostly used as armored mobile artillery so they don't really need to be great at tank-on-tank battles.
I surmise that losing Abrahm’s the way that Ukraine’s losing Leopards would be a blow to US prestige.
I think that the concern is that the Abrams tanks require a lot of maintenance compared to Leopards, and Ukraine would struggle keeping up with the maintenance. It may be the only tank in the world powered by a jet engine. Having said that, I would also agree that we could send more of them. Just sending 10% of what we have in storage would put 500 Abrams tanks in Ukraine's hands.
You mean like in Iraq, when we lost either zero or one Abrams tank to enemy fire, versus 3300 of the Russian tanks that Iraq was using? Would it be that kind of blow to our prestige? Cause I'm thinking we could handle that.
32 years later, what makes the Abrahms invulnerable in a way the Leopards are clearly not ? Have they been upgraded with a super secret cloaking device ?
Shouldn't you be on the Bryan "Idaho Serial Killer" Kohberger thread? Sarcastically telling people who think he's guilty that "history began the night he killed those four people", and that the authorities practically forced him to commit the murders?
I doubt Russia is making many Armatas or T-90s, they'd be stupid to do so. Based on how tanks are used in this war, T-72 in its various modernized versions is by far the best way to go. But we're still sending Abrahms. I'd think that having to maintain Leo2s, Challenger 2s, T-64/72/80s as well as Abrahms would be more complicated than just working with a predominantly Abrahms force, even if it has a larger logistical footprint.
Have to laugh at how naive Putin's government seems to think the every day Russian is... Wagner leader Yevgeny Prigozhin is back in Russia, says Belarus' Lukashenko MOSCOW — The head of the Wagner mercenary group Yevgeny Prigozhin is back in Russia, nearly two weeks after Wagner's failed uprising against the country's military leadership. That's according to Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko, who negotiated an end to last month's insurrection with the Kremlin by offering to host Prigozhin and his Wagner mercenaries in Belarus. Speaking to reporters in Belarusian capital Minsk on Thursday, Lukashenko said Prigozhin was no longer under his protection. "As far as Prigozhin is concerned, he is in St. Petersburg," said Lukashenko. "He is not in Belarus." Lukashenko also said that Wagner mercenaries had yet to relocate to Belarus and suggested that decision was still pending in Moscow. Under the terms of that agreement, Prigozhin promised to withdraw his troops, and the Kremlin said the Wagner leader won't face charges for the mutiny, though Russian President Vladimir Putin branded him a "traitor." Russian officials said Prigozhin would be exiled to neighboring Belarus. Yet on Thursday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov appeared to dismiss the ironclad nature of the agreement. "No, we don't track his movements," Peskov said. "We have neither the means, nor the desire to do so." https://www.npr.org/2023/07/06/1186186367/yevgeny-prigozhin-wagner-russia-belarus-lukashenko Riiggggghht....I'm wondering if this is the Russian government's way of telling the people Prigozhin is a dead man without telling them he's a dead man. The wording is vague enough so as to not be overly obvious, yet still delivers the message. I suppose they could really think the common Russian is that dumb, but they've seen a lot over the years, so I have my doubts.
"According to an assessment collated by the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency, Russia has suffered 189,500-223,000 total casualties, including 35,500-43,000 killed in action and 154,000-180,000 wounded. Ukraine has suffered 124,500-131,000 total casualties, including 15,500-17,500 killed in action and 109,000-113,500 wounded in action, according to the document entitled "Russia/Ukraine - Assessed Combat Sustainability and Attrition..." Ukraine war, already with up to 354,000 casualties, likely to last past 2023 - U.S. documents
It is a heavier-duty tank with more armor, especially when you are talking about the 100 Leopard 1 (46 tons) tanks that Germany sent, compared to the 31 M1 Abrams tanks (60 tons) that the U.S. sent. The Dutch and Danes combined to send 14 Leopard 2 tanks (and various allies have promised another 71 L-2 tanks), which are heavier (69 tons). The more advanced Abrams tanks range from 63 tons to 74 tons. In the Iraq War, multiple U.S. tankers reported Iraqi tank shots bouncing off the Abrams tank. I don't know that the Leopards are "clearly" vulnerable. Ukraine has only lost 3-4 of them that I can verify. How many tanks has Russia lost in this war? My web search indicates that the number is currently over 4,000. If the Leopard tank is "clearly vulnerable" in this conflict, then the Russian tanks are "clearly made of cardboard" in comparison. I don't think the tanks are doing a whole lot of good at this point in the conflict anyway. Once Ukraine gets past Russia's defensive lines in some place or another, then the tanks and IFV's will do a lot more damage to the Russian army, in my opinion.
Long range, accuracy. Moves command and control and logistics nodes (munitions) further from the front, makes a big difference. Would allow them to hit Crimea bridge, ports, refineries, airports that they can't reach right now. Abrams are high maintenance
We're only sending 31 Abrams tanks (0.3% of what we have). It was more of a token contribution to persuade Germany to give up some of their tanks. I thought we should have tried to convince Germany to send 100 Leopards in exchange for us sending Germany 120 or even 150 Abrams tanks.
I’m all for the ATACMS, but I think the concern (not mine, personally) is that Ukraine would hit targets in Russia with them. Speaking for self, I think we’re way past that.
