War Invasion of Ukraine News Megathread - Thread is only for articles and discussion of articles, general discussion thread is still in Happenings.

Status
Not open for further replies.
President Joe Biden on Tuesday said that the United States will impose sanctions “far beyond” the ones that the United States imposed in 2014 following the annexation of the Crimean peninsula.

“This is the beginning of a Russian invasion of Ukraine,” Biden said in a White House speech, signaling a shift in his administration’s position. “We will continue to escalate sanctions if Russia escalates,” he added.

Russian elites and their family members will also soon face sanctions, Biden said, adding that “Russia will pay an even steeper price” if Moscow decides to push forward into Ukraine. Two Russian banks and Russian sovereign debt will also be sanctioned, he said.

Also in his speech, Biden said he would send more U.S. troops to the Baltic states as a defensive measure to strengthen NATO’s position in the area.

Russia shares a border with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

A day earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered troops to go into the separatist Donetsk and Lugansk regions in eastern Ukraine after a lengthy speech in which he recognized the two regions’ independence.

Western powers decried the move and began to slap sanctions on certain Russian individuals, while Germany announced it would halt plans to go ahead with the Russia-to-Germany Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

At home, Biden is facing bipartisan pressure to take more extensive actions against Russia following Putin’s decision. However, a recent poll showed that a majority of Americans believe that sending troops to Ukraine is a “bad idea,” and a slim minority believes it’s a good one.

All 27 European Union countries unanimously agreed on an initial list of sanctions targeting Russian authorities, said French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, and EU foreign affairs head Josep Borell claimed the package “will hurt Russia … a lot.”

Earlier Tuesday, Borell asserted that Russian troops have already entered the Donbas region, which comprises Donetsk and Lugansk, which are under the control of pro-Russia groups since 2014.

And on Tuesday, the Russian Parliament approved a Putin-back plan to use military force outside of Russia’s borders as Putin further said that Russia confirmed it would recognize the expanded borders of Lugansk and Donetsk.

“We recognized the states,” the Russian president said. “That means we recognized all of their fundamental documents, including the constitution, where it is written that their [borders] are the territories at the time the two regions were part of Ukraine.”

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Putin said that Ukraine is “not interested in peaceful solutions” and that “every day, they are amassing troops in the Donbas.”

Meanwhile, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky on Tuesday morning again downplayed the prospect of a Russian invasion and proclaimed: “There will be no war.”

“There will not be an all-out war against Ukraine, and there will not be a broad escalation from Russia. If there is, then we will put Ukraine on a war footing,” he said in a televised address.

The White House began to signal that they would shift their own position on whether it’s the start of an invasion.

“We think this is, yes, the beginning of an invasion, Russia’s latest invasion into Ukraine,” said Jon Finer, the White House deputy national security adviser in public remarks. “An invasion is an invasion and that is what is underway.”

For weeks, Western governments have been claiming Moscow would invade its neighbor after Russia gathered some 150,000 troops along the countries’ borders. They alleged that the Kremlin would attempt to come up with a pretext to attack, while some officials on Monday said Putin’s speech recognizing the two regions was just that.

But Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told reporters Tuesday that Russia’s “latest invasion” of Ukraine is threatening stability in the region, but he asserted that Putin can “still avoid a full blown, tragic war of choice.”

Article
 
The Us had to compensate with toxic round
The use of du rounds predates the adoption of the L/44 gun. Their use predates the Abrams itself. The US isn't compensating for the gun length with du rounds. In fact, the l/55 is longer in order to compensate for the lower pressure rounds used by the German military, which were in turn chisen in order to reduce wear on the gun barrels and reduce maintenance costs.
 
Last edited:
You cant train slavs to work Tanks peroperly.
C'mon you Aryan blooded German, do better
Screenshot 2023-01-29 033502.png
 
Yemeni rebels living in caves don't seem to have a whole lot of trouble disabling and destroying Saudi purchased Abrams so I won't hold my breath. 100 abrams isn't an "lol this will win the war" thing like this line of bullshit we're being fed. A mobility kill on an Abrams is just as good as Ukraine has very minimal ability to retrieve damaged abrams or any damaged vehicle off the battlefield.

Drop in the bucket.

In Iraq with a downed American vehicle immense resources would be expended to retrieve it. The Ukrainian army simply cannot afford such a luxury.
That's true, a lot of armchair generals and War Thunder no-lifes think that you literally have to fireball the tank in order to make it no longer useful, which isn't the case. In 1956 during the Hungarian uprising the locals found all sorts of ways to fuck up the T-34s, even a modern tank still has weaknesses and is basically useless if immobilized.

Honestly I think that the sending of tanks might create some serious logistics issues, they already have like a hundred calibers to keep up with in small arms.
Yeah. I mean if we're using "Performance of the tank when crewed and maintained by dune coons" yardstick on the Abrams, I have some fun Desert Storm numbers to bring up for the T-72...
To be fair, Arab armies are filled with tribal loyalties and are often kept deliberately weaker than the ruling elite's Republican Guard or equivalent. Not to mention the usual idiocy that befalls the Middle East, and maintenance of any type of equipment in the desert is a challenge even for competent militaries.
 
According to Wikipedia a little over 10,000 Abrams tanks have been produced in total. With roughly 3,000 having been sold to various allied powers, with Egypt being the biggest user (1,360 tanks) besides the US. All active US-owned tanks currently belong to the army, given the marines decision to forgo tanks in 2020. Those 450 marine tanks were given to the army and presumably are up to current warfighting standards. The army has 2,500 active tanks (besides the 450), with roughly another 4,000 older models sitting in storage.

I know Wikipedia is as creditable as typical journoscum, but assuming those figures are roughly accurate. Biden and co. could easily send way more then 31-100 tanks. I know they won't, but obviously the powers that be are being tepid at best with their support.

A 100 tanks won't obviously turn the tide of the war, nor 450 up-to-date models. However 1,000 or two could.
 
the M1 cant handle the newest western cannon because it was designed for 105mm
The turret was explicitly designed from the start to accommodate an upgun to a 120mm, which the US did with the M1A1 as soon as 120mm ammo was developed by us that outmatched the performance of the M900. I'm sorry but first-gen rounds for both the Rh/44 and L7A1 were only as good as the final gen rounds the USA was using on its own smaller guns thanks to us using super-pressure ammunition.
The M68 differs from the L7 in several aspects :

  • The M68 uses a concentric recoil spring instead of a separate buffer and recuperator hydraulic cylinders.
  • The M68 has a cylindrical breech with a vertical sliding breech block instead of a square-shaped breech with a horizontal sliding breech block.
  • Firing is electrical only.
  • The M68 barrel is secured to the breech by a tapered pin and interrupted breech threads which allow the barrel to be removed from the gun shield without having to dismantle the mantlet.
  • The M68 is fitted with an eccentric bore evacuator instead of a concentric model in order to provide more clearance over the rear deck.
  • The M68 chamber has a difference in the length of its shoulder, producing a different diametral taper near the freebore.
Those are the modifications we did to the L7 to improve it to our standards which coincidentally dropped a ton of weight and bulk from it, and we also did the exact same to the Rh/44 to create the M256. You should feel embarrassed, but then again you Germans have never been concerned with trivialities like "weight", "internal volume", and "ease of maintenance".
You just don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you?
He's German, so the man knows less than nothing when it comes to armored vehicles.
The Us had to compensate with toxic round
Yes, because tungsten is non-toxic.
Tungsten is the only metal in the third transition series that is known to occur in biomolecules, being found in a few species of bacteria and archaea. However, tungsten interferes with molybdenum and copper metabolism and is somewhat toxic to most forms of animal life.
Oh, whoops, no its not.
This reads likes The Imperial Guardsman’s Uplifting Primer.
Eh not really. IIRC Abrams tankers are trained to set their elevation to 1km when firing at tanks since the drop is pretty much non-existent out to that distance due to velocity. That same reason is why all modern armor simulations use that 1km metric since that's considered knife fight range for modern armor due to a combination of cannon and ammunition performance and optics and FCS.

That said the A-10 guys put together an instructional manual for newer pilots in the 1980's that reads like a 4chan shitpost, especially when they start talking about the vulnerability of a T-72's bottom armor, so the line between reality and comedy is razor thin when you're talking about the military.

As they say, if you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined.
To be fair, Arab armies are filled with tribal loyalties and are often kept deliberately weaker than the ruling elite's Republican Guard or equivalent. Not to mention the usual idiocy that befalls the Middle East, and maintenance of any type of equipment in the desert is a challenge even for competent militaries.
Its why Arabs lose wars.

A 100 tanks won't obviously turn the tide of the war, nor 450 up-to-date models. However 1,000 or two could.
Yeah, but Ukraine can't support 1,000 tanks like that, not until and unless they have mechanics and crews trained and a completely new supply chain for spare parts and maintenance. Maybe in a few years they'll be able to supply, support, maintain, and crew substantial numbers of Western tanks, but not any time soon.

And don't pay attention to Stoneheart. He's probably never seen an M1 in real life.
That aside he's German, so, I'm just going to assume he knows nothing about how militaries work for anything past the year 1900. But I'd love to hear his groundbreaking insights on how to defeat Napoleon III in the field.

And now the news and article tax:
https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1618668612793032704
#Canada will soon transfer four Leopard 2 A4 tanks to #Ukraine and will send Canadian troops to #Europe to help train the Ukrainian military. This was announced by the Minister of National Defence of Canada Anita Anand.
I've got nothing. Not even an "I'm helping" joke.

https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1618636129934131201
On January 25, the Azov Special Operations Regiment officially turned into the Third Separate Assault Brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and is currently fighting for Bakhmut in Donetsk Oblast, the page of the newly created brigade announced.
The Azov remnants appear to have found enough manpower to be upgraded in size.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/01/ukraines-first-mk-vi-patrol-boat-breaks-cover/
Actual article here, but those patrol boats are going to come in real handy.
 
According to Wikipedia a little over 10,000 Abrams tanks have been produced in total. With roughly 3,000 having been sold to various allied powers, with Egypt being the biggest user (1,360 tanks) besides the US. All active US-owned tanks currently belong to the army, given the marines decision to forgo tanks in 2020. Those 450 marine tanks were given to the army and presumably are up to current warfighting standards. The army has 2,500 active tanks (besides the 450), with roughly another 4,000 older models sitting in storage.

I know Wikipedia is as creditable as typical journoscum, but assuming those figures are roughly accurate. Biden and co. could easily send way more then 31-100 tanks. I know they won't, but obviously the powers that be are being tepid at best with their support.

A 100 tanks won't obviously turn the tide of the war, nor 450 up-to-date models. However 1,000 or two could.

The problem is once you give Ukraine tanks, Ukraine has tanks. They might not want to stop at the 2013 borders. 31 tanks is just getting Ukrainian logistics spun up. You also have to get those tanks shipped and transported. Nation like Hungary can hardly object to Ukraine getting 100 tanks, they might start to raise a stink when Ukraine has 1,000.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: IAmNotAlpharius
Israel is apparently attempting demilitarization of Iran, it's that time of year after all:

Some claims were brought to my attention that Israel is "Secretly helping to disrupt Iranian weapon deliveries to Russia", maybe someone can find more
The problem is once you give Ukraine tanks, Ukraine has tanks. They might not want to stop at the 2013 borders. 31 tanks is just getting Ukrainian logistics spun up. You also have to get those tanks shipped and transported. Nation like Hungary can hardly object to Ukraine getting 100 tanks, they might start to raise a stink when Ukraine has 1,000.
It's year 2029, after conquering Russia, Ukraine turns its sights on Poland
 
According to Wikipedia a little over 10,000 Abrams tanks have been produced in total. With roughly 3,000 having been sold to various allied powers, with Egypt being the biggest user (1,360 tanks) besides the US. All active US-owned tanks currently belong to the army, given the marines decision to forgo tanks in 2020. Those 450 marine tanks were given to the army and presumably are up to current warfighting standards. The army has 2,500 active tanks (besides the 450), with roughly another 4,000 older models sitting in storage.

I know Wikipedia is as creditable as typical journoscum, but assuming those figures are roughly accurate. Biden and co. could easily send way more then 31-100 tanks. I know they won't, but obviously the powers that be are being tepid at best with their support.

A 100 tanks won't obviously turn the tide of the war, nor 450 up-to-date models. However 1,000 or two could.
The first batch is always a test batch.Look at the HIMARS/M270 (probably an incorrect comparison but whatever).Burgers sent them few systems, and look what happened.US evaluates the perfomance of said system and decides whether send more or not.Repeat for every sent weapon.
 
The problem is once you give Ukraine tanks, Ukraine has tanks. They might not want to stop at the 2013 borders. 31 tanks is just getting Ukrainian logistics spun up. You also have to get those tanks shipped and transported. Nation like Hungary can hardly object to Ukraine getting 100 tanks, they might start to raise a stink when Ukraine has 1,000.
Do you mean the 2014 border?
Because in 2013, the border was stabil and unmolested.
 
@Snekposter "maintenance"
The problem is once you give Ukraine tanks, Ukraine has tanks. They might not want to stop at the 2013 borders. 31 tanks is just getting Ukrainian logistics spun up. You also have to get those tanks shipped and transported. Nation like Hungary can hardly object to Ukraine getting 100 tanks, they might start to raise a stink when Ukraine has 1,000.
I knew maintenance would always be a chokepoint, but realistically how long are these tanks gonna last? Russia is using T-64s aren't they? And have been so for a while. Seems like modern systems when used by the incompetent don't last long. If tomorrow 1,000 modern MBTs just showed up on Ukraine's doorstep, I'd assume Russia would have destroyed/knocked out half of them by the middle of the year. As you both pointed out, Ukraine really doesn't have the maintenance facilities to fix an Abrams. Once its got a hole in it, its a write-off; unless they send it state-side.

I never considered the political implications, I'll admit that. My point was, that 31, 100 or 400 tanks isn't a war-winner and nothing more than political points for Biden.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Pocket Dragoon
That said the A-10 guys put together an instructional manual for newer pilots in the 1980's that reads like a 4chan shitpost, especially when they start talking about the vulnerability of a T-72's bottom armor, so the line between reality and comedy is razor thin when you're talking about the military.

In WWII P-51 .50s couldn't punch through tank armor so the pilots learned to 'skip' their bullets off the ground to get them to hit the thin Panzer bottom armor.
 
I saw everyone seeming to agree a increase of ~300 MBTs would be needed to fuel a spring offensive, let alone deal a war-ending blow.
Please provide a definition of what you mean by that if you can. About 300-340 tanks of various models have already been declared, at least over 120 are Western models and most of the rest are Soviet-era T-72s. The third source will be heavily modified Soviet-era tanks such as the PT-91.

I am almost sure that the declared abrams will be used as training equipment.

You forget the Russian crews are also slavs.
Ukraine doesn't need a giant tank edge, just parity.
Earlier in this thread, there was information about the training of Ukrainian soldiers in NATO countries. Perhaps they are trained to use Western stuff at least not terribly.

Donbas is pretty flat and lack natural defenses.
There are fortifications on both sides of the front line. I don't think the front line in this part will move much in the coming phase of the war. I am betting on two options:

- moderate: offensive to the south, along the Zaporozhye-Melitopol axis;
- full berserk and crossing the border on the Kharkiv-Belgorod axis.

The second is a bit of political fiction, but it could be a stepping stone to a quick end to the war. Or start the slaughter.

Ukraine really doesn't have the maintenance facilities to fix an Abrams.
West equipment is serviced outside Ukraine, like PzH 2000 serviced in Lithuania.
 
The problem is once you give Ukraine tanks, Ukraine has tanks. They might not want to stop at the 2013 borders. 31 tanks is just getting Ukrainian logistics spun up. You also have to get those tanks shipped and transported. Nation like Hungary can hardly object to Ukraine getting 100 tanks, they might start to raise a stink when Ukraine has 1,000.
Not likely. Ukraine's economy is entirely dependent on western support. They couldn't launch an offensive war, even if they wanted to.
 
In WWII P-51 .50s couldn't punch through tank armor so the pilots learned to 'skip' their bullets off the ground to get them to hit the thin Panzer bottom armor.
The chances of a ricochet being both intact enough and possessing enough energy to penetrate are statistically zero unless we're talking about something parked flat on hard terrain like concrete where it just becomes highly unlikely, especially since those were just steel-cored rounds with a lead jacket. Just because something was done doesn't mean it actually worked. After all, the sandbags on the fronts of Shermans did jack and squat besides add weight on the front of it. And the Avenger's ammo is more likely to bury itself in the dirt from their sheer mass. You're not getting its AP round to ricochet off dirt either on account of it being HVAP with a DU subcaliber inside of an aluminum sabot.
Do you mean the 2014 border?
Because in 2013, the border was stabil and unmolested.
No, I'm pretty sure he means 2013, and I wouldn't blame the Ukrainians for trying for it. God knows they deserve war reparations from Russia should they prove victorious, and the only things Russia can spare are land and natural resources. The ruble might even reach Zimbabwe levels of uselessness if Ukraine could score a win.
West equipment is serviced outside Ukraine, like PzH 2000 serviced in Lithuania.
Ah yes, the industrial powerhouse of the Baltics. We sort of see the issue here with that because Europe is simply not able to provide both the new tanks and repair and maintain any damaged ones. Rheinmetall is probably screaming at the government 24/7 about how it needs to expand yesterday because the Poles have been screaming at them ever since the outbreak of war about the 2PL's they're upgrading and modifying. The Poles can't send over their upgraded Pact tanks until they get their 2PL's delivered, so Rheinmetall probably has every spare engineer working on those... which is why the PzH 2000 is being serviced in the Baltics, because I guarantee you the Poles can't spare the resources since they're mobilizing and preparing their own stuff to send.

Paradoxically, this is NATO working if not as intended, then as intended as a backup plan with smaller nations able to act as subcontractors to the more developed ones thanks to how super-standardized NATO is under the STANAG classifications.

Fun fact: During the Cold War you had F-104G Starfighters flying that used a combination of vital parts all made in Spain, Italy, and Germany, and as you can probably guess consistent quality control of industrial parts among the Spaniards, Germans, and Italians is the next best thing to a miracle from God now, never mind the 1960's. And no, they suffered from piloting error far more than any mechanical breakdown, never mind what you may think of Lockheed's bribery. The Starfighter as a whole was just the aerial equivalent of an F-1 race car, and as a result was just as deadly to be in control of for anyone insufficiently trained and talented.
 
No, I'm pretty sure he means 2013, and I wouldn't blame the Ukrainians for trying for it. God knows they deserve war reparations from Russia should they prove victorious, and the only things Russia can spare are land and natural resources. The ruble might even reach Zimbabwe levels of uselessness if Ukraine could score a win.
ahh yes, you are correct. I was missremember things, as I forgot that Crimea happend in early 2014 and right after Euromaiden.
2013 make more sense.
 
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/...red-mig-29-fighters-to-ukraine-as-spare-parts

In March 2022, shortly after the beginning of the war, a plan to transfer the whole Polish fleet of MiG-29 fighters officially fell through, after Poland and the United States failed to reach an agreement.


“It cannot be that Poland is the only NATO country to bear the risk, and other countries would not have to compensate or share it with us in any way; we will continue to talk with our allies about MiG-29 planes,” Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Pawel Jablonski told Polish media on March 9, 2022.

Days later, the Ukrainian Air Force said that it had not officially received any new aircraft from its allies, only spare parts, and components that helped in the restoration and repair of its current fleet.
It's likley Poland just sent old examples to pull parts from but I would love to hear years from now some of those Former East German MiGs Poland purchased for a single Euro back in the day were sent over in operational condition.
 
C'mon you Aryan blooded German, do better
View attachment 4358559
kursk was an impossible situation for the german army to begin with, the overmatch in manpower and materiel was absurdly large
like, just look at this shit
krsk.png

the entire eastern front illustrates that there's a hard limit to how far the "quality over quantity" approach can be taken before collapsing under the sheer weight of numbers disadvantage
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back