|
Nenonen posted:It doesn't seem like this deterred Ukraine from taking the eastern Kharkiv oblast back in September or from pressuring Russians in Kherson to the point that they withdrew in November? A lot remains unknown, but the analysis I've heard from people such as Michael Koffman is that the Kharkiv offensive was possible because Ukrainian artillery caused a lot of attrition that Russian units couldn't afford because Russian mobilization hadn't caught up yet. Coupled with pressure on Kherson pulling a lot of Russian units to the south, and units around Kharkiv were undermanned for the front they were defending and had no operational reserve in the area. That is not the situation on the ground today. Russian units have enough infantry to maintain defensive lines, and Ukraine does not have enough artillery to punch holes in those lines.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:06 |
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:Unsaid publicly: 5) they're expensive, nobody seems to ever have nearly as many in working order as their headline numbers, and procurement of more will probably get hosed up leaving the donor country short and/or poor. This makes sense in some way, but also if you’re anywhere in Europe outside of Yugoslavia and Greece, and you don’t border Russia or Belarus, there is a 0% chance you have to deal with a military invasion in the next 10 years, unless a country between you and Russia-Belarus has collapsed. If I were Croatian I’d keep all my tanks but I don’t think Spain and Italy have to worry about a jihad sweeping out of Mecca and repeating history from 1300 years ago. You’d want to keep a fair number for training, but tanks seem like far and away the least useful part of the military for anyone in Western Europe. Even for overseas adventures, did France actually use any tanks in West Africa during Barkhane? If France gave away 90% of its tanks I’m pretty sure Germany wouldn’t roll over the Rhine and claim Alsace while Switzerland gobbles up Haut Savoie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 18:15
|
|
|
Saladman posted:If France gave away 90% of its tanks I’m pretty sure Germany wouldn’t roll over the Rhine and claim Alsace while Switzerland gobbles up Haut Savoie. Of course they wouldn't: all of the German tanks are broken down from lack of spare parts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 18:27
|
|
|
France still has land border with Suriname and Brazil, let's not forget.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 18:40
|
|
|
EmployeeOfTheMonth posted:I think this is not only about the hypothetical "offensive push" for Ukraine in 6 months, its how are they going to defend in the coming months. I think 10000 "volunteers" would have more effect than 14 challenger tanks. Leaving aside what others have said about tummy feels not being proof of something currently happening, I note that the Ukrainian standing army before the war was about 240k men, and in July, claimed to have mobilized 700k men. Russia similarly is mobilizing somewhere between 500k to 1m men. Wagner Group meanwhile didn't really seem to break 10k prior to the war and at this point is still only 50k. 10k men isn't nothing but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the sheer scale of the war, and no, special forces aren't ninjas that can take on ten times their numbers and come out victorious. Even Wagner's antics are more about internal propaganda to strengthen Prigozhin's position in the internal politics of Russia, not because Wagner is actually an elite, decisive arm of the Russian military. And on that note I'll point out that there's a difference between Wagner contributing to the war when they're a widely acknowledged arm of Russian government policy in a war that Russia is actively fighting vs NATO setting up the same thing when NATO is very explicitly NOT directly fighting in the war, and has no intentions of doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 18:54
|
|
|
So it appears that Germany is still refusing to allow sending Leopards to Ukraine. What a shitshow. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-expects-decisions-tanks-western-defence-leaders-meeting-2023-01-20/
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 19:20
|
|
|
bad_fmr posted:So it appears that Germany is still refusing to allow sending Leopards to Ukraine. What a shitshow. I think this just handed Donetsk and Luhansk to Putin. There’s nothing Ukraine can do against those newly mobilized troops without losing more of their troops in the process. And unlike Russia, they can’t replace that manpower. The tanks and IFV were needed right NOW so they can be ready to attack in April. Now Russia has time to consolidate and reinforce their positions or even counter attack. We have had all of this year to give Ukraine the armor they needed to press their advantage and take back their land. Now? Now what the gently caress are they going to do? The CIA director himself came over to set expectations and it’s clear western support WILL evaporate or scale back from what we’re getting now. Putin is trying to run out the clock and his strategy is succeeding and will vindicate the invasion despite the losses. Poland should just send the tanks anyway. This is cowardice. EDIT: Ukraine’s only hope is to use the latest generation post 1980s western weaponry that gives them force multiplier capability to shift attrition in their favour and offset the numerical advantage the Russians have. Kraftwerk fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Jan 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 19:35
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:I think this just handed Donetsk and Luhansk to Putin. Poland have already said they will send the tanks regardless of Germany's response. Whether that was a bluff or not, we'll see.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 20:02
|
|
|
TescoBag posted:Poland have already said they will send the tanks regardless of Germany's response. Have they? The AP article that came out stated the opposite, I have no idea why the reporting is so confusing on the subject and why there's so much unclear back and forth. quote:The defense minister of Poland, which has pledged a company of 14 Leopard tanks on condition that other countries also supply them, said 15 countries that have the German-made Leopards discussed the issue but no decisions were made. Also a bit more charitable to the German position: quote:He said he had ordered the ministry to look into the tank stocks Germany has so he can be prepared for a possible green light and be able to “act immediately.” Pistorius added that Germany will “balance all the pros and contras before we decide things like that. … I am very sure that there will be a decision in the short term but … I don’t know how the decision will look.” quote:German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, who took office Thursday just an hour before he met with Austin, said that opinions among allies were mixed on the tank issue, and added that “the impression that has occasionally arisen that there is a united coalition and Germany is standing in the way is wrong.” https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-politics-military-technology-joint-chiefs-of-staff-lloyd-austin-1b505c88a5a6f331cd482762c62fa29c Lots of silent majority energy going on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 20:07
|
|
|
Pistorius is basically being as pro-tanks as he possibly can be while the decision is sitting with his boss.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 20:22
|
|
|
What are they actually afraid of? Every bridge has already been burned with Russia when natural gas was cut off and the invasion began. What are these nations hoping to get in exchange for holding back tanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 20:22
|
|
|
My reading on the subject is that nobody (except the Brits) thinks they have the ability to get the Ukrainians working tanks in an effective manner and they don't even want to try while hiding behind various excuses but its all a confusing mess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 20:27
|
|
|
I think Germany is still, against all evindence to the contrary, hoping for some sort of compromise solution with Russia. The British have already pledged tanks so the escalation explenation does not really hold water.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 20:32
|
|
|
Thread title really needs to be some kind of German-themed pun at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 20:51
|
|
|
WarpedLichen posted:Have they? The AP article that came out stated the opposite, I have no idea why the reporting is so confusing on the subject and why there's so much unclear back and forth. I was referring to this: https://www.politico.eu/article/poland-ready-tanks-without-germany-mateusz-morawiecki-consent-olaf-scholz/
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 21:01
|
|
|
I think we'll get more clarity on this around Tuesday-Wednesday, when some journo has had the time to summarize the timeline correctly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 21:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1616521950871928833 The situation in Bakhmut is deteriorating pretty badly. Looks like they're not going to have stable supply lines for long. It seems kind of inevitable that they'll have to give it up eventually.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 21:56
|
|
|
WarpedLichen posted:My reading on the subject is that nobody (except the Brits) thinks they have the ability to get the Ukrainians working tanks in an effective manner and they don't even want to try while hiding behind various excuses but its all a confusing mess. Even though I poke at Germany's maintenance woes, I honestly hadn't considered this, but it's a good hypothesis. If Europe's mechanized forces are truly destitute, admitting it could actually be dangerous. Russia wasn't exactly a paper tiger, but perhaps some western European countries' militaries are?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 22:07
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Even though I poke at Germany's maintenance woes, I honestly hadn't considered this, but it's a good hypothesis. If Europe's mechanized forces are truly destitute, admitting it could actually be dangerous. Russia wasn't exactly a paper tiger, but perhaps some western European countries' militaries are? I mean are they even any kind of tigers if the military has been thoroughly reduced since the end of the cold war?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 22:27
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Even though I poke at Germany's maintenance woes, I honestly hadn't considered this, but it's a good hypothesis. If Europe's mechanized forces are truly destitute, admitting it could actually be dangerous. Russia wasn't exactly a paper tiger, but perhaps some western European countries' militaries are? There's definitely some element of many European militaries realizing that they underinvested in readiness, but I don't buy that there's a widespread systemic failure there so bad that Europe couldn't get together and provide Ukraine a bunch of tanks and the required training to get them running and fixing them. Even if they were close to that badly degraded that would make stopping and setting Russia back now all the more urgent. idk we'll have a better idea once Germany makes a decision on Leopard 2s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 22:33
|
|
|
Are the challengers 100% confirmed? How are they going to be used?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 22:37
|
|
|
Europe got really comfortable with the US doing the defence over decades. Yeah, i would not be surprised if germany's unwillingness stems from actually being totally unprepared. It wouldnt be surprsing to learn that the graft there was on equal scale to Russia. What if its worse and spare parts for weapons systems they export are no where to be found. That would be a real kicker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 22:42
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:Are the challengers 100% confirmed? Yes, and how do we know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 22:43
|
|
|
Interestingly Germany has been fine with leopards getting sent around Europe to replace legacy soviet equipment getting sent to Ukraine (and at pretty generous rates, eg 15 Leopard 2s for 30 of Slovakia's bmp 1s). The first of those leopard 2s was delivered over a month ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 22:48
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Yes, and how do we know. All we can do is guess. Mine is that Ukraine will use the new shipments of vehicles to put together a heavy mechanized regiment. A battalion each of American and Swedish IFVs, a battalion of those French scout cars with the 105mm, and a company of Challenger 2s. Add artillery, AA, and T-series tanks to taste and you have a unit capable of breakthrough and exploitation operations. All the NATO vehicles can share information, so all that firepower is going to be pointed in the optimal direction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 22:50
|
|
|
If Germany doesn't want to empty their stocks of Leopards, but US doesn't want to give Ukraine Abrams for mostly logistical concerns, seems like US giving Abrams to Germany until Germany can get themselves sorted could be an easy fix for all this. But really I hope we're just at the point where Germany is called out enough for their BS excuses and just hands over the Leopards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 23:02
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:All the NATO vehicles can share information, so all that firepower is going to be pointed in the optimal direction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 23:10
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Do we have a confirmation that NATO comms technology isn't blanked ripped out of them? We probably won't know before long after the war. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 23:16
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:If Germany doesn't want to empty their stocks of Leopards, but US doesn't want to give Ukraine Abrams for mostly logistical concerns, seems like US giving Abrams to Germany until Germany can get themselves sorted could be an easy fix for all this. the issue isn't germany handing over leopards, the issue is germany needs to approve other countries' export requests
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 23:18
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:the issue isn't germany handing over leopards, the issue is germany needs to approve other countries' export requests There's not been a lot of them submitted so far, in all fairness. I think the yesterday's export notification might be the first one, actually (I don't remember if Spain submitted theirs formally in the spring).
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 23:32
|
|
|
Tbh what irritates me the most about Scholz is his absolute unwillingness to explain his rationale on anything. He's an arrogant jackass who develops sudden memory loss when questioned about things. He is that way on every issue. His persistent unwillingness to lay down the rationale driving decisions displays a warped understanding of what elected officials are supposed to do and who they represent. There are politicians in his own coalition who understand this, like Habeck who will go in front of angry oil refinery workers to explain to them why their job may be in danger. And that's probably the last I'll write about Scholz because I hate that rear end in a top hat from the bottom of my heart and I doubt I can maintain any sort of reasonably detached posting about his person. Anyway, Bloomberg reports something I haven't seen elsewhere and that I'm too tired to source. quote:“Germany won’t stand in the way if other states act like us, especially with regard to the possible preparatory training on these tanks,” new defense minister, Boris Pistorius, said Friday after a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group at the US airbase in Ramstein. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 23:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RFERL/status/1600108768838098944 Gepards good but held back by Swiss ammo issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2023 00:01
|
|
|
Full text except staffer intro is quoted below. Video and full transcript in the link. My highlights went long, but the speakers didn't have much time and packed a fair amount of points into a small period of time. https://www.defense.gov/News/Transc...-press-confere/ Additional PDA, as mentioned in text. This one was released yesterday, 19JAN. https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3272866/biden-administration-announces-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/ NATO press release ref the contact group today: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_210927.htm -SECDEF emphasizes ongoing efforts of contact group to have multi-national cooperation since contact group began in April as well as long-term commitment. [My note: consistent with long-running US message that Russia is trying to wait everyone out, and US argues this theory of victory will not succeed] -SECDEF: "pushing hard to meet Ukraine's requirements for tanks and other armored vehicles" -Lists donations from France, Germany, Canada, Sweden, UK, Netherlands, Latvia, Denmark, Estonia, etc. -Mechanized battalion and brigade training ongoing in Germany for Ukrainian troops -GEN Milley: "our 30th security assistance package, signifying our continued commitment to Ukraine, and this package, combined with our previous one, includes combined arms maneuver capabilities with supporting artillery, equivalent to at least two combined arms maneuver brigades or six mech infantry battalions, 10 motorized infantry battalions, and four artillery battalions, along with a lot of other equipment." [My note: Pretty close in combat power, though it assumes Brigade Support Battalions are provided out of Ukraine's stores and/or prior donations of trucks, support vehicles, etc.] -This combat power is designed to defend Ukraine as well as enable counter-offensives to retake Ukrainian territory currently occupied by Russian forces. -When asked about main battle tanks, SECDEF points out that German Minister of Defense is undecided on Leopards so far. Says contact group is focused on ensuring Ukraine has capability to be successful, and they see a short window of opportunity between now and the spring to pull together capabilities -When asked if he would like to throw Germany directly under the bus and blame them for tanks and call them an unreliable partner, SECDEF opted not to do so. Points out that this is not about one specific singular platform. Points out US providing 2x Brigades worth of mech capability, Germany providing Marders, Sweden a battalion's-worth of CV90s, artillery, etc. -GEN Milley highlights that the frontage is equivalent to Washington, DC to Atlanta in size, and that the area occupied by Russia still has a large number of Russian forces defending those occupied areas and conducting offensive action around Bakhmut and Soledar. -GEN Milley: "So from a military standpoint, I still maintain that for this year it would be very, very difficult to militarily eject the Russian forces from all -- every inch of Ukraine and occupied -- or Russian-occupied Ukraine. That doesn't mean it can't happen; doesn't mean it won't happen, but it'd be very, very difficult. I think what can happen is a continued defense stabilized in the front. I think it's possible to clearly do that, and I think it's, depending on the delivery and training of all of this equipment, I do think it's very, very possible to -- for the Ukrainians to run a significant tactical- or -- or even operational-level offensive operation to liberate as much Ukrainian territory as possible, and then what was -- then we'll see where it goes." -SECDEF came back largely unprompted to highlight that Germany has or is currently about to provide a large amount of support to Ukraine: Patriot Battery, Marders, artillery, IRIS-T, Gepards, hosting training, conducting training themselves, hosting US forces, hosting the transportation hubs that help supply Ukraine, etc. [My note: The SECDEF recognizes and seems to want to verbalize that Germany is catching negative press about Ukraine, despite being a major donor and supporter of Ukraine] -SECDEF denies that sending Abrams would "unlock" Leopard donations. Says that the US decision one way or the other on Abrams has nothing to do with German arms decisions. [My note: Takes pressure off of Germany as well as the US to send Abrams to "trigger" Leo donations. There's weird main battle tank domino theory going on in the press IMO] -GEN Milley is asked a question about having time to prepare for a coherent offensive. GEN Milley highlights that training is essential to these donations being effective. Very short period of time between now and spring offensive. It remains to be seen whether that can be done successfully. He thinks it can be done, but it will be very challenging to meet the timeline. Points out that Ukraine has led successful offensives before, but there are a lot of moving parts to marry up equipment, training, and executable plans. -When asked about casualty estimates, GEN Milley: "Russian casualties -- last time I reported out -- on it publicly, I said it was well over 100,000. I would say it's significantly well over 100,000 now." -Says Ukraine has also suffered tremendously and has suffered a significant amount of infrastructure and economic damage and a significant number of civilian and miltiary casualties. [My note: the last time he commented on this, in November of 2022, he said that Ukrainian military casualties were probably about the "same" as Russian casualties at the time] -GEN Milley Highlights that the very high casualties for both sides are part of what leads him to believe this war will end at a negotiation table with an end state of a free, sovereign, independent Ukraine, with its territory intact. [My note: Presumably the meaning of "territory intact" is the most negotiable of those items listed] quote:SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LLOYD J. AUSTIN III: Thank you all for joining us today at Ramstein.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2023 01:10
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Full text except staffer intro is quoted below. Video and full transcript in the link. My highlights went long, but the speakers didn't have much time and packed a fair amount of points into a small period of time. Thanks for doing these again. It looks like the US is trying to manage expectations - in their view, the war is likely to go to 2024 at least, and while there's a good chance of there being an offensive this year, at most we might get another Kharkiv before calling it for the year. That throws some light on MBT discussions as well - if the question is whether MBTs can be prepared, trained for, and sent in time for a 2023 offensive not sending MBTs right this minute seems like it's hamstringing Ukraine's capabilities (and there probably isn't enough time to make it work for a spring offensive anyways by this point). But if they're fully expecting things to go into 2024, that adds for a longer preparation timeline and it may be the US at least sees this playing out with an opportunistic offensive now before Russia can fully utilize their mobilization advantage, followed by a longer period of preparation for a really big push next year - possibly with a hefty supply of well-trained, well-maintained Western equipment (including MBTs) to make it really decisive. Of course, US assessments aren't necessarily correct, and in any event US assessments may not necessarily match up with, say, Ukrainian assessments - which would fit with reports of the US trying to persuade Ukraine to delay a spring offensive. Possibly the US may be trying to argue that Ukraine would better off trying to score a total victory by waiting to fully amass as much power as they can before they go for the throat, while Ukraine considers the political, economic, and humanitarian costs of waiting things out to be too high and needs some kind of offensive ASAP regardless. Either way, the US assessment doesn't seem to rate the odds of a major Russian breakthrough this year very highly given that they speak only in terms of what Ukraine might accomplish, with the low end being a "continued defense stabilized in the front" and the high end being "operational-level offensive to liberate Ukrainian territory", but that might just be the public face.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2023 02:14
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I believe they say 58 59 60. it's because fifty ate sixty 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2023 02:31
|
|
|
CNN has the best post-Ramstein summary for the tank debacle as yet, I think. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/20/europe/germany-leopard-2-tank-ukraine-explainer-intl/index.html This is a bit light on specific sound bites from German or Polish officials, and doesn't touch upon the reported late-Thursday export notification for Leopards (Poland's, I assume), but otherwise I think this does tie up different threads of the narrative well enough. Freakazoid_ posted:it's because fifty ate sixty Okay, this is much better workshopped. Thank you 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2023 02:54
|
|
|
Few thoughts on the meeting: 1. Having a big meeting with a disagreement followed by behind the scenes negotiations which create an eventual solution has sort of been the EU's MO for quite some time, usually around sensitive subjects as Brexit and the like. For whatever reason the politics seem to work best when a public event pushes the disagreement out into the open, which creates the necessary crisis to force a resolution. I think a Leopard deal still gets done soon (might require Biden to send a dozen Abrams though). 2. This still smells like Germany wanting to keep an open window for rapprochement with Russia in some sort of future stalemate scenario where the importance of Russia's energy reserves forces a limited re-engagement with the west. There's a decent probability we get an outcome like that, and I think Germany feels the need to hedge against it (maybe I should say Scholz instead of 'Germany' as a whole, but German polls do seem to back negotiations now). 3. A large chunk of this equipment being for a major counteroffensive soon is so obvious no one is trying to hide it. US SecDef Austin at the Ramstein meeting: “We have a window of opportunity here between now and the spring, whenever they commence their operation, their counteroffensive, and that’s not a long time” I am a bit wary of all this new equipment needing to be onboarded by the Ukrainians for some sort of imminent operation. What actually ends up being involved in the fighting during the first half of this year will be interesting to see.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2023 03:23
|
|
|
Has anyone explored the economics and optics of sending tanks to Ukraine? Tanks, like fighter jets are a huge source of revenue for nations with the industrial capacity to design and manufacture them, and obviously very expensive. The optics of sending troop carriers and artillery pieces aren't likely going to be tracked; given the optics of the enormous numbers of vulnerably annihilated high end Russian tanks I imagine that this would reflect poorly if the same thing were to happen to western MBTs and this might be why western nations who produce MBTs might be reluctant to battle-test them, even against what Russia is currently fielding and their total incapacity for combined arms battlefield tactics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2023 03:58
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Yes, and how do we know. I don't think the UK or Ukraine know yet either. IMO it was a mostly symbolic gesture to give some political cover for Germany. I think the US should send over a platoon of M1s for the same reason. Even if they just end up as a garrison and training unit in western Ukraine, that would put a lot more pressure on Scholz. quote:this would reflect poorly if the same thing were to happen to western MBTs and this might be why western nations who produce MBTs might be reluctant to battle-test them We've already seen burnt-out M1s and Leopard 2s in Iraq and Syria, I don't think anybody cares. Especially since the T-72 turret toss has kind of turned into a meme at this point. Bubbacub fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Jan 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2023 04:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:06 |
|
|
Huggybear posted:Has anyone explored the economics and optics of sending tanks to Ukraine? Tanks, like fighter jets are a huge source of revenue for nations with the industrial capacity to design and manufacture them, and obviously very expensive. The optics of sending troop carriers and artillery pieces aren't likely going to be tracked; given the optics of the enormous numbers of vulnerably annihilated high end Russian tanks I imagine that this would reflect poorly if the same thing were to happen to western MBTs and this might be why western nations who produce MBTs might be reluctant to battle-test them, even against what Russia is currently fielding and their total incapacity for combined arms battlefield tactics. Eh, that might be a factor in decision-making but I feel like it'd be a relatively minor factor - issues of national defense, internal politics over sending aid to Ukraine, diplomatic relationships with the players involved, procurement issues on the home front etc. are likely to factor in a lot more. Besides, this assumes that the government (who's the one actually making the decision to send tanks or not, not the manufacturers) is actively nervous that their tanks will come off badly in practice compared to Russian tanks, and if they're worried about THAT it's probably not optics they're primarily concerned with, but whether or not their national defense is sufficient. If, as is entirely possible, they feel confident about their tanks then optics aren't going to stop them - in fact, it'll encourage them to send them in to showcase what they can do and act as a living advertisement. And honestly, at this point if Western MBTs go into Ukraine and start exploding at a rate similar to Russian tanks, the conclusion people are likely to draw isn't "Lol Western tanks useless and dumb just like Russians, better buy from China or something" but rather "Well, if Russian tanks AND Western tanks are exploding at a high rate in a real shooting war, maybe tanks just have a naturally high attrition rate in modern warfare and we oughta buy more just in case."
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2023 04:41
|
|