We are not really helping Ukraine

[JoeWeber 2,941]

Yes, the US has supplied $60B of stuff we wouldn't use anyway, good for us. But we are not supplying the arms that would make advancing against Russias extensive defensive works easier.

I say no more games, ATACM's should be fast tracked at the minimum. Also, we should suggest "nalevo" that we don't have a problem with an occasional over shoot. More than that we are way behind the PR game in that it is documented that Russia has used cluster munitions since they invaded but because we suck they can get traction saying that we are the start of the problem. 

Ukraines counter offensive is stalled because they are protecting their troops. That is smart. Let our EU partners hand wring as they have ever done, now it is time to show the it really is the American Century. Let's get after this and get it done.

[jakee 1,596]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Yes, the US has supplied $60B of stuff we wouldn't use anyway, good for us. But we are not supplying the arms that would make advancing against Russias extensive defensive works easier.

Glad to see you’ve finally caught up with reality after a year of insisting that the US is supplying everything that could be useful.

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Let our EU partners hand wring as they have ever done, now it is time to show the it really is the American Century. Let's get after this and get it done.

Oh, now you’re back in your imaginary world. Europe has lead the way in supply of heavier and longer range weapons at almost every turn. Europe supplied Storm Shadow / Scalp cruise missiles. Europe supplied main battle tanks. Europe has been pushing for F16 export licences to be granted since the start of this year. 
 

The best thing that could possibly happen for Ukraine is for the USA to stop its hand wringing and get with the European program.

[JoeWeber 2,941]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Glad to see you’ve finally caught up with reality after a year of insisting that the US is supplying everything that could be useful.

Oh, now you’re back in your imaginary world. Europe has lead the way in supply of heavier and longer range weapons at almost every turn. Europe supplied Storm Shadow / Scalp cruise missiles. Europe supplied main battle tanks. Europe has been pushing for F16 export licences to be granted since the start of this year. 
 

The best thing that could possibly happen for Ukraine is for the USA to stop its hand wringing and get with the European program.

Europe is being steered, and so are you. 

[jakee 1,596]

1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

Europe is being steered, and so are you. 

Well there's a meaningful response. Care to elaborate?

 

There is definitely a problem across the entire coalition of taking this 'boil a frog' approach of gradually ramping up the range and offensive capabilities of weapons systems supplied to Ukraine. However it has for some time now been the US that is consistently dragging its heels and wringing its hands, and Europe which is trying to steer it in a more proactive direction.

 

If some European countries had their way the Ukrainian counteroffensive would be receiving cover from the first operational F16 squadrons about now, but thanks to the US that'll probably have to wait until at least next year. 

[Phil1111 1,183]

Jakee is right that some EU countries have been leaders in supplying advanced weapons to Ukraine. Joe is right that its time to do more. IMO 1,000 to 2,000 of the M1 tanks in storage should be supplied. These are the old models with the 105mm guns and there is a shortage of 105mm ammo. There are 2,700 in storage and will likely never move again. Picture of them below.

President Biden has been cautious about pouring weapons into the battle. But he has also been prudent. F-16s with precision glide bombs are the next important weapons. Along of course with ATACM's. The Kerch/Putin bridge should have been rusting at the bottom of the Black sea for a year by now.

The Ukrainian military has been prudent in its offense. They have received the best training in "combined arms' warfare from the west. But actual operations are proving to be difficult with no air superiority.

[JoeWeber 2,941]

4 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Jakee is right that some EU countries have been leaders in supplying advanced weapons to Ukraine. Joe is right that its time to do more. IMO 1,000 to 2,000 of the M1 tanks in storage should be supplied. These are the old models with the 105mm guns and there is a shortage of 105mm ammo. There are 2,700 in storage and will likely never move again. Picture of them below.

President Biden has been cautious about pouring weapons into the battle. But he has also been prudent. F-16s with precision glide bombs are the next important weapons. Along of course with ATACM's. The Kerch/Putin bridge should have been rusting at the bottom of the Black sea for a year by now.

The Ukrainian military has been prudent in its offense. They have received the best training in "combined arms' warfare from the west. But actual operations are proving to be difficult with no air superiority.

Air superiority would be great but air defenses may be all the west can do now. We're fighting a proxy war and right now we don't want spillover into Russian territory with our weapons. Maybe later but not now. Long range missiles need to be supplied now that the Ukrainians have demonstrated prudence and that they can be trusted. Maybe I'm just being a curmudgeon but I don't believe any of our allies would have done anything bold without the US backstopping and approving the decision.

The Kerch bridge should be gone, agreed, but isn't that an interesting puzzle? Somehow the Ukrainians were able to time it perfectly and blew the roadway just when a train of fuel tankers was crossing on the tracks above. And they got it all so right that the tankers caught fire and destroyed the railway, too.  And still no one knows how they did it. They must have some very tricky special forces, no?

 

[jakee 1,596]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Air superiority would be great but air defenses may be all the west can do now. We're fighting a proxy war and right now we don't want spillover into Russian territory with our weapons. Maybe later but not now.

Hand wringing….. activate! I see no reason why we should demand the war be fought exclusively on Ukrainian territory. Russia is facilitating the war through numerous logistics hubs inside its own territory, and directly waging war from numerous airbases within its territory. These are legitimate targets. We know that every one of Putin’s red lines will be crossed sooner or later, and we (almost certainly) know that when they’re crossed he won’t actually do anything, just like he hasn’t done with any of the previous ones. So let’s just get it over with.

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Maybe I'm just being a curmudgeon but I don't believe any of our allies would have done anything bold without the US backstopping and approving the decision.

Then you’re just, again, denying the reality that is in front of your face. What US approval did the UK need to supply Challengers and Germany to approve Leopard supply, when the US was still refusing Abrams even in principle? What approval did the UK need to supply Storm Shadows when the US still hasn’t agreed to supply anything comparable in range? The EU does need (and has been begging for) the US approval it legally requires to re-export F16s…. and still nothing. 
 

If you wanna suggest solutions, you have to be honest about the problems first.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

7 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Jakee is right that some EU countries have been leaders in supplying advanced weapons to Ukraine. Joe is right that its time to do more. IMO 1,000 to 2,000 of the M1 tanks in storage should be supplied. These are the old models with the 105mm guns and there is a shortage of 105mm ammo. There are 2,700 in storage and will likely never move again. Picture of them below.

President Biden has been cautious about pouring weapons into the battle. But he has also been prudent. F-16s with precision glide bombs are the next important weapons. Along of course with ATACM's. The Kerch/Putin bridge should have been rusting at the bottom of the Black sea for a year by now.

The Ukrainian military has been prudent in its offense. They have received the best training in "combined arms' warfare from the west. But actual operations are proving to be difficult with no air superiority.

I don't doubt that there ARE Abrams tanks in that picture...
Somewhere. 
But the 3 in the front are M60s (I think).

And the rows and rows look like m113s and some derivatives (the ones in the 2nd & 4th row are M577 command vehicles).

One problem with giving Abrams to Ukraine is that US versions have Depleted Uranium armor. That's an item that cannot beexported. Export versions of the tanks have different armor.
So the US tanks destined for Ukraine need to have the DU armor removed and replaced. There's only one place that can do that right now. Various other companies were solicited to do it, but none were able to meet the requirements. 
So it's going to take some time to make that happen.

Also, don't forget that Germany 'dragged their feet' pretty good on the Leopard tanks. So it's not just the US.

Plus, the "Freedom Caucus" (Freedom from decency? From Intelligence?) is dead set against helping Ukraine out. Those dipshits keep introducing legislation to halt aid.

[riggerrob 643]

Agreed!

I learned how to drive in an M113.5 Lynx back when the USSR was still considered evil.

Sending M113s to Ukraine would reduce the number of Ukrainian infantry casualties. Remember that this is a war of attrition where Russia can afford to lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers while Ukraine cannot replace their casualties. The Canadian Army learned this lesson during the summer of 1944 and responded with Kangaroo APCs.

Several retired American generals have opined that sending M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine might be a bit of a "white elephant." The last thing the Ukrainian Army needs is a new supply chain for M1 Abrams, plus a new supply for British-supplied Challengers, plus a new supply chain for Leopards, plus a new supply chain for ......

[JerryBaumchen 1,468]

27 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

Agreed!

I learned how to drive in an M113.5 Lynx back when the USSR was still considered evil.

Sending M113s to Ukraine would reduce the number of Ukrainian infantry casualties. Remember that this is a war of attrition where Russia can afford to lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers while Ukraine cannot replace their casualties. The Canadian Army learned this lesson during the summer of 1944 and responded with Kangaroo APCs.

Several retired American generals have opined that sending M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine might be a bit of a "white elephant." The last thing the Ukrainian Army needs is a new supply chain for M1 Abrams, plus a new supply for British-supplied Challengers, plus a new supply chain for Leopards, plus a new supply chain for ......

Hi Rob,

Are they now not evil?

Jerry Baumchen

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,468]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

Hand wringing….. activate! I see no reason why we should demand the war be fought exclusively on Ukrainian territory. Russia is facilitating the war through numerous logistics hubs inside its own territory, and directly waging war from numerous airbases within its territory. These are legitimate targets. We know that every one of Putin’s red lines will be crossed sooner or later, and we (almost certainly) know that when they’re crossed he won’t actually do anything, just like he hasn’t done with any of the previous ones. So let’s just get it over with.

Then you’re just, again, denying the reality that is in front of your face. What US approval did the UK need to supply Challengers and Germany to approve Leopard supply, when the US was still refusing Abrams even in principle? What approval did the UK need to supply Storm Shadows when the US still hasn’t agreed to supply anything comparable in range? The EU does need (and has been begging for) the US approval it legally requires to re-export F16s…. and still nothing. 
 

If you wanna suggest solutions, you have to be honest about the problems first.

Hi jakee,

I'm with you.  IMO to win this thing, Ukraine is going to have to do this.

The sooner the better IMO.

Jerry Baumchen

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

1 hour ago, riggerrob said:

 

..Sending M113s to Ukraine would reduce the number of Ukrainian infantry casualties. Remember that this is a war of attrition where Russia can afford to lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers while Ukraine cannot replace their casualties...

The US is sending Bradley IFVs. Far better than M113s. 

While a bunch have been destroyed, and even more damaged (mostly repaired and put back into service), few of the troops in them, or in the modern tanks have been killed.
That's the huge advantage of western equipment over Soviet (Russian). Crew survivability. 

Ukraine is 'fighting smart', and is seeing kill ratios that are very favorable. While its true they can't afford to lose as many soldiers as the Russians, first off they aren't. Second off the Russians do not have an 'endless supply' of troops. They've scoured the prisons. Last I heard, they're going after migrant workers. Both immigrants from the former 'Soviet Republics' and Russians from the far east. 

The Russians are also seeing soldiers refuse to fight. Those 'refusniks' suffer some pretty severe punishments, but they know full well that they're just going to die on the front lines anyway, so what's the difference?

With Wagner mostly out of the picture, the Russians are really in trouble. They had a fair amount of time to create and construct really good defensive positions, but Ukraine is still making slow progress just about everywhere they try. The Russians are pretty much out of reserve troops. If (and it is a pretty big 'if') Ukraine can make a serious breakthrough somewhere, they're going to run rampant behind the Russian lines. There's very little to stop them. 

 

6 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

...The Kerch bridge should be gone, agreed, but isn't that an interesting puzzle? Somehow the Ukrainians were able to time it perfectly and blew the roadway just when a train of fuel tankers was crossing on the tracks above. And they got it all so right that the tankers caught fire and destroyed the railway, too.  And still no one knows how they did it. They must have some very tricky special forces, no?

 

Rather prophetic of you.

The bridge was badly damaged last night. It's going to be a couple months before one side is useable again.

The 'how' is pretty speculative (as it has been). Current speculation is that they used a 'remote controlled explosive laden boat'. Apparently blowing it up from below is better than missiles from above. People who know more about these things than I do can make educated guesses from the damage.

Pure speculation is that the Ukrainians 'MacGuyvered' a jet ski into a self propelled marine bomb.

And as far as timing goes, the Ukrainians have a HUGE network of informants in occupied Ukraine.

They know a lot about who is going where and when.