War in Ukraine: thread feedback session open unttil Saturday (i'll regret this)

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > War in Ukraine: thread feedback session open unttil Saturday (i'll regret this)

«‹›275 »

Telsa Cola: Aug 19, 2011; No... this is all wrong... this whole operation has just gone completely sidewaysface

mobby_6kl posted:

Wait, what. There aren't 31 functional M1s sitting anywhere right now?

This is why I'm so confused by this whole tank situation. So early last year some T72s were supplied from Poland/Slovakia etc. At that point it had to be clear that this wouldn't be enough to drive all the way to Moscow, so surely a prudent thing would've been to start preparing more poo poo then, so that while the political things are being worked out, all the logistical things could be worked out.

Early last year the US was pretty firm on the whole "We aren't supplying tanks" thing, and prepping a battalion of tanks to send across the world is a pretty big undertaking for something you dont want to do.

Its really only in like the last month or so that the US, the UK, Germany have made sending tanks an option, and I'd argue a decent portion of that is political dick waving.

Also yeah see below.

# ? Jan 25, 2023 22:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 03:25

Ardeem: Sep 16, 2010; There is no problem that cannot be solved through sufficient application of lasers and friendship.

There are more than 31 M1s, there might not be more than 31 export M1s that haven�t already been sold to someone else.

# ? Jan 25, 2023 22:01

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

It might also be coming up with a specific variant that up to the required spec but without any of the absolute top stuff they don't want falling in to the hands of Russia.

# ? Jan 25, 2023 22:05

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

It also might be a step towards just sending ones that are just sitting around even though they won�t commit to that yet.

# ? Jan 25, 2023 22:06

Grey Area: Sep 9, 2000; Battle Without Honor or Humanity

I guess the point is that all the surplus tanks have the restricted uranium armor and old tanks are converted to the export version as needed, with no significant number of uranium-free tanks in storage.

Conversion of tanks for Taiwan is currently in progress, but they are probably not interested in letting Ukraine cut in line giving the current political situation in East Asia.

# ? Jan 25, 2023 22:09

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

What I would say is that PREPOs that aren�t clearly alongsides a pier have been showing �not updated� or �NUNYA� (business) on AIS since all this started so who knows.

# ? Jan 25, 2023 22:11

Orthanc6: Nov 4, 2009

mobby_6kl posted:

Wait, what. There aren't 31 functional M1s sitting anywhere right now?

This is why I'm so confused by this whole tank situation. So early last year some T72s were supplied from Poland/Slovakia etc. At that point it had to be clear that this wouldn't be enough to drive all the way to Moscow, so surely a prudent thing would've been to start preparing more poo poo then, so that while the political things are being worked out, all the logistical things could be worked out.

I'm guessing why they're not sending more readily available Abrams is for 1 of 2 reasons:

1) The good-to-go Abrams are earmarked for various defense scenarios that, given the hostile state of China but especially Russia, it would be a bad idea right now to be less prepared for.

2) some complicated and obscure internal political reason that just makes it easier to procure the Abrams this way

They might not be showing up in Bakmut tomorrow, but this is a game changer, and aside from being late Ukraine is getting the best case scenario. The concern over how many more tanks Russia has, or how many tanks Russia can produce is gone. Ukraine just has to hold on a few more months for the floodgates to open, which they've done extremely well thus far even with the setbacks around Bakmut.

# ? Jan 25, 2023 22:15

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

mobby_6kl posted:

Wait, what. There aren't 31 functional M1s sitting anywhere right now?

This is why I'm so confused by this whole tank situation. So early last year some T72s were supplied from Poland/Slovakia etc. At that point it had to be clear that this wouldn't be enough to drive all the way to Moscow, so surely a prudent thing would've been to start preparing more poo poo then, so that while the political things are being worked out, all the logistical things could be worked out.

US isn't giving away anything that is assessed to be critical to providing for a national military deterrent and in that regard all M1s are spoken for. This has applied to everything that has been given to Ukraine, generally: if it is considered indispensable then Ukraine isn't getting it.

As an aside, Russia has been a striking and modern example of just how vital having deep reserves of vehicles is.

E:

Ynglaur posted:

Now that's interesting. If Ukrainian tank battalions are organized along Soviet lines--and they mostly are, with 31 tanks per battalion--they should only have 1-2 recovery vehicles per battalion. A US mechanized battalion doesn't even have 8: it has 1 per company and 1 or 2 (I can't remember which) at the battalion level.

A few possibilities:

The additional M88 recovery vehicles are for the Leopard battalions.

The US is actually providing more M1s than they're publicly stating. (I view this as unlikely.)

The additional M88 recovery vehicles are for existing Ukrainian armored forces, for which recovery vehicles are always useful.

Recovery vehicles are a very important maneuver asset. The faster you can recover disabled or stuck vehicles, the faster you can move the maximum amount of combat power around.

That is curious

Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Jan 25, 2023

# ? Jan 25, 2023 22:20

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Orthanc6 posted:

2) some complicated and obscure internal political reason that just makes it easier to procure the Abrams this way

They can't provide an M1 that is inferior to Challenger/Leopard/Leclerc but someone in the DoD has gone down off the list and ticket off all the tech Ukraine can't have.

# ? Jan 25, 2023 22:21

ecureuilmatrix: Mar 30, 2011

War in Ukraine: Putin for nothing and tanks for free

# ? Jan 25, 2023 22:24

Libluini: May 18, 2012; I gravitated towards the Greens, eventually even joining the party itself.

The Linke is a party I grudgingly accept exists, but I've learned enough about DDR-history I can't bring myself to trust a party that was once the SED, a party leading the corrupt state apparatus ...; Grimey Drawer

Ynglaur posted:

It's also not like inhaling a bunch of tungsten carbide dust is good for you, either. Yes, depleted uranium dust is probably worse for you, but if its between killing the T-80 with the first round through the front hull and not killing it, I'll take the former and try to warn recovery crews to stay away from the wreck for a few days if they can manage.

Libluini - Do you happen to have sources on the "5-10% better"? I'm not doubting you - I'm just curious to learn more.

To come back to this, I couldn't find the original Wiki-article anymore, but I found this handy table comparing different penetrators:

Geschossenergie und Durchschlagsleistung

"Wolframcarbid" is German for Tungsten Carbide. The table is a bit obsolete, as the page for the Leo-2 adds that some German KE-penetrators can now easily penetrate 800mm armor.

Here you can see that at the high end, penetration power is pretty evenly distributed, with the "best" being a DU-type from Russia, about 10% stronger than the 2nd place (900mm to 800mm)

The top three of KE-penetrator darts is, according to the table:

1. Russia (900mm, DU)
2. Russia/Germany* (800mm, TC)
3. US (800mm, DU)

That's two TCs against two DUs, with Russia's super-ammunition slightly winning out.

*The more modern German Leo-2 ammunition can be found here, with another detailed table towards the end.

To avoid confusion, since I can't influence what freakish stuff like Google Translate will mangle out of this mess: "MZ" are types of multipurpose warheads that aren't made anymore. "KE" are kinetic energy penetrator darts and the only "HE" entry, DM11, is the new high-explosive ammunition that was developed after modern tank armor made the old MZ-shells more and more obsolete.

In the new scheme, DM11 is supposed to be used against soft targets, and KE-sabots to gently caress up hard targets. The newer German KE-darts can also reach 800mm penetration, not 750 like the first table claims.

Anyway, if you add the ridiculous health problems DU-ammunition can cause, it looks like TC-darts still win out, even if they sometimes have less penetration (like, in that table exactly one type of DU is "better" in that case, which I did not expect, :lol:

).

Looking at the whole picture, it seems like TC-darts are easier to make, to store, and to use, while not losing out on much penetration power. In any big war between peers, I'd bet on tungsten carbide being the better option for your tank forces.

# ? Jan 25, 2023 22:28

sean10mm: Jun 29, 2005; It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, MAD-2R World

Historically real life performance of Russian sabot rounds has uh not matched the paper specs very well.

Like most Russian military hardware lol

# ? Jan 25, 2023 22:37

Kraftwerk: Aug 13, 2011; i do not have 10,000 bircoins, please stop asking

sean10mm posted:

Historically real life performance of Russian sabot rounds has uh not matched the paper specs very well.

Like most Russian military hardware lol

What's your source?

I'm genuinely curious to read about any action reports where soviet tanks fought western ones and their sabot rounds were actively being used and hitting targets to poor effect.

# ? Jan 25, 2023 23:00

Kavros: May 18, 2011; sleep sleep sleep
fly fly post post
sleep sleep sleep

sean10mm posted:

Historically real life performance of Russian sabot rounds has uh not matched the paper specs very well.

It's what you get for noob saibot. But seriously, its probably not much of a surprise.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jan 25, 2023 23:12

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Telsa Cola posted:

Early last year the US was pretty firm on the whole "We aren't supplying tanks" thing, and prepping a battalion of tanks to send across the world is a pretty big undertaking for something you dont want to do.

Its really only in like the last month or so that the US, the UK, Germany have made sending tanks an option, and I'd argue a decent portion of that is political dick waving.

Also yeah see below.

Well that was the official public line. Just like "ATACMS aren't needed". Sure.

I suppose it all depends on what the actual goal of the administration was. If it was to be a pain in Putin's rear end, then that makes sense and some 60-year-old BMPs would do.

Otherwise though this step should've been seen as completely inevitable, in which case it would make sense to prepare in parallel. But that's why I'm not a big brained 4 star general.

Herstory Begins Now posted:

US isn't giving away anything that is assessed to be critical to providing for a national military deterrent and in that regard all M1s are spoken for. This has applied to everything that has been given to Ukraine, generally: if it is considered indispensable then Ukraine isn't getting it.

As an aside, Russia has been a striking and modern example of just how vital having deep reserves of vehicles is.

Wouldn't those tanks be pretty good at deterring Russia?

The export restriction angle seems kind of plausible but I've no idea how many of different variants are among the ~4000 that are sitting in deserts.

# ? Jan 25, 2023 23:18

Ynglaur: Oct 9, 2013; The Malta Conference, anyone?

Kraftwerk posted:

What's your source?

I'm genuinely curious to read about any action reports where soviet tanks fought western ones and their sabot rounds were actively being used and hitting targets to poor effect.

The Gulf War 1991 and the Iraq Invasion in 2003, perhaps? I haven't seen formal reports, but I'd be amazed if no T-72s managed to hit a single Abrams.

# ? Jan 25, 2023 23:18

Telsa Cola: Aug 19, 2011; No... this is all wrong... this whole operation has just gone completely sidewaysface

mobby_6kl posted:

Well that was the official public line. Just like "ATACMS aren't needed". Sure.

I suppose it all depends on what the actual goal of the administration was. If it was to be a pain in Putin's rear end, then that makes sense and some 60-year-old BMPs would do.

Otherwise though this step should've been seen as completely inevitable, in which case it would make sense to prepare in parallel. But that's why I'm not a big brained 4 star general.

Wouldn't those tanks be pretty good at deterring Russia?

The export restriction angle seems kind of plausible but I've no idea how many of different variants are among the ~4000 that are sitting in deserts.

Pretty sure that's goal still, It's an incredibly easy way to completely humilate and neuter one of your competing global powers while at the same time limiting any splashback that may come back to you.

Probably not a lot if they are spinning production up to fill export orders.

# ? Jan 25, 2023 23:21

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

Herstory Begins Now posted:

US isn't giving away anything that is assessed to be critical to providing for a national military deterrent and in that regard all M1s are spoken for. This has applied to everything that has been given to Ukraine, generally: if it is considered indispensable then Ukraine isn't getting it.

Additionally, the US has spent the last few years, continuing through 2023, converting 337 M1A1 hulls into the M1074, Joint Assault Bridge System. When the Marine Corps announced the plan to divest all of their tanks, they weren't bound for storage, they were pretty rapidly being transferred over to the US Army.

# ? Jan 25, 2023 23:22

Vietnom nom nom: Oct 24, 2000; Forum Veteran

Libluini posted:

Looking at the whole picture, it seems like TC-darts are easier to make, to store, and to use, while not losing out on much penetration power. In any big war between peers, I'd bet on tungsten carbide being the better option for your tank forces.

You use DU because of what it does after penetration. It's penetration is 'good enough', and then...

quote:

Armour penetration is increased by concentrating the force of a shell into as small an area as possible, so the projectiles tend to look like giant darts. The denser the projectile, the harder the impact for a given size. DU is almost twice as dense as lead, making it highly suitable. The other metal used for anti-tank rounds is tungsten, which is also very hard and dense. When a tungsten rod strikes armour, it deforms and mushrooms, making it progressively blunter. Uranium is "pyrophoric": at the point of impact it burns away into vapour, so the projectile stays sharp. When it breaks through, the burning DU turns the inside of a vehicle into an inferno of white-hot gas and sparks.

source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/may/18/armstrade.kosovo

# ? Jan 25, 2023 23:44

SaTaMaS: Apr 18, 2003

ecureuilmatrix posted:

War in Ukraine: Putin for nothing and tanks for free

War in Ukraine: Putin some tanks or Scholz the gently caress up

# ? Jan 25, 2023 23:48

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

War in Ukraine: Tanks, I guess

# ? Jan 26, 2023 00:11

Libluini: May 18, 2012; I gravitated towards the Greens, eventually even joining the party itself.

The Linke is a party I grudgingly accept exists, but I've learned enough about DDR-history I can't bring myself to trust a party that was once the SED, a party leading the corrupt state apparatus ...; Grimey Drawer

Vietnom nom nom posted:

You use DU because of what it does after penetration. It's penetration is 'good enough', and then...

source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/may/18/armstrade.kosovo

you should have looked at details of what a TC-penetrator does when breaking through armor, because not knowing that a TC-penetrator sends a shower of molten metal droplets into the interior of a tank to horrifically bake everything inside makes your post look a bit silly

even a tiny rupture caused by a TC-dart can kill everyone inside the tank*

*At least when using German KE-sabots! I just blindly assume other nation's TC-ammunition works the same way, because physics are cruel.

# ? Jan 26, 2023 00:23

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

And now, an announcement from the White House. (On background) I cut out a significant amount of words that amount to "Western allies and partners are talking and working together well. Unity and long-term commitment!"
White House transcript: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...ort-to-ukraine/
DOD announcement: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3277443/biden-administration-announces-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/

Highlights:
-31 Abrams tanks with 120mm rounds and other ammunition [Admin is not sharing exact type of Abrams at this time. Or ammo.];
-Eight Tactical Vehicles to recover equipment (M88)
-Support vehicles and equipment
-Funding for training, maintenance, and sustainment.
-This is projected to be enough for 1x Ukrainian Tank Battalion. AFAIK, they still use 10x Tank companies (3x 3-Tank Platoons, 1x Commander's tank), which is the Russian/Soviet style vs the 14 tanks you'll find in a US company of tanks( 3x 4-Tank platoons, Company Commander and XO each have a tank). This is also how it can get weird when comparing an equal number of companies, but one company is 140% the size of another company.
-Since this is a USAI sourcing, it will not draw down tanks from US formations.
-Since this is a USAI sourcing, it will go out for bidding and sourcing. This will take months. Past examples of USAI donations included manufacturing new NASAMs batteries, the last of which are scheduled for delivery in Ukraine around 2025.
-Describes Abrams commitment as longer term whereas other nations' tank commitments are more immediate.

quote:

...
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, [senior administration official]. I know you guys have lots of questions, and we want to provide time for you to ask them to our experts. So, I will make this incredibly short just to sort of set up � offer some framing thoughts.

Number one, today�s announcement that the U.S. is going to send 31 M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine is very much a continuation of our effort to provide Ukraine with the capabilities that they need to continue to better defend themselves and also, in keeping with that, representative of a long-term � long-term commitment that we have to Ukraine�s defense needs. And I know [senior administration official] will have more to say on that.
...

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Great. Thanks, [senior administration official]. Good morning. Pleasure to be here with you this morning.

Today, we will be announcing that the United States will send 31 (inaudible) Ukrainian tank battalions. Secretary Austin is focused on ensuring that we deliver a full capability to the Ukrainians.

Together with the collective training we�ve been providing, armored capabilities will improve the Ukrainians� ability to maneuver, which is a critical asset for Ukraine as they continue to defend and reclaim their territory.

On the tanks specifically, I�m proud to say that Abrams tanks are the best in the world. This is a tremendous new capability that Ukraine will be getting to boost its long-term defenses.

We will be procuring these Abrams tanks for Ukraine through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative � or USAI � funding. While the deliveries will take some time because this is a procurement, the United States will begin now to work to establish a comprehensive training program for the Ukraine (inaudible) tanks are complex systems that require a significant amount of training and maintenance. So, DoD is currently working through the mechanisms to deliver the fuel and equipment Ukraine will need to operate and to maintain the Abrams.

We do expect other nations to announce contributions of additional armored capability, including some that will be readily available for use on the battlefield in the coming weeks and months. As you all heard Chancellor Scholz announce, Germany has committed to sending Leopard tanks to Ukraine.

This Abrams announcement builds on the drawdown package that the Biden administration announced last week at the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. This package includes more than 500 armored vehicles of various types for Ukraine. And there are additional announcements that came out at the Ukraine Defense Contact Group (inaudible) in the category of armored vehicles but also in other critical capability areas, like air defense and artillery.

At this point, as we stand 11 months since Russia launched its brutal and barbaric war against Ukraine, the United States has been the leading provider of weapons and equipment to support Ukraine. But we have rallied the world and stood strong with our allies to help Ukraine defend themselves against Russian aggression.

And I would just echo the comments of my colleagues that President Biden has been clear: The United States will continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

I welcome your questions.
...

This is not attributable to me, but through [senior administration official]. Today, we�ll be announcing that the United States will send 31 M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, which is the equivalent of Ukrainian tank battalion.
...

Q Hi, guys. A couple questions. One, why 31? Two, how long will it take to actually get the Abrams into Ukraine? Why so long? Apparently, it�s at least 12 months. And three, obviously, [senior administration official], you and [senior administration official] and even the Secretary in the last few days have all said that the Abrams is unsustainable to send to Ukraine. So, what changed? Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, Nick. This is [senior administration official]. I�ll go ahead and take this one. So, the reason for 31 is because that is how many tanks would constitute a Ukrainian tank battalion. So, we are specifically meeting that requirement. So that�s the reason for the number.

And in terms of how long it will take, I don�t have a very precise number for you, but because this is a procurement under USAI, we�re talking months as opposed to weeks. And as with other capabilities, you�ve seen us do this before, if we do not have (inaudible) readily within U.S. stocks, then we go the procurement route to make sure that we can procure the right capability for Ukraine. And that is what we�re doing here with the Abrams.

In terms of sustainment, maintenance, training, these are all really important considerations. We will have the ability to put in place a very careful training program, but also a very careful program to be able to, you know, maintain and sustain these tanks, which do require a good deal � a good deal of assistance.

And I should mention also � this is kind of another level of detail on the procurement. In addition to the Abrams, we�re also procuring eight M88 Recovery Vehicles as part of this package. So, these are the vehicles that go with the Abrams to be able to, you know, provide recovery operations to make sure that the Ukrainians will be able to keep these Abrams up and running.

Over.

Q Thank you. Can you offer anymore texture on the complexity of the training that will be needed for the tanks? And where will the training take place?

And then, secondly, I just wanted to ask: The administration has stuck pretty strictly to the principle of only providing materiel that Ukraine can effectively use in the fight. And as you�ve noted, there are some challenges that came with the Abrams in Europe, including fuel and maintenance concerns.

So, I guess, broadly, any concern of moving away from that principle that the administration has been pretty strict with keeping throughout the last 11 months? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, I can jump on that one as well. So, in terms of the training, there are multiple aspects of this training, and, you know, part of it is the training to just operate the tank. So that�s a piece of it. And you�ve seen us doing this kind of training with all of the different platforms that we�ve provided to Ukraine to make sure that they can operate the platform proficiently.

And then, separate but related to that is the training that relates to maintenance and sustainment. And usually, there are specific, kind of, maintainer crews that we can train to deal with all the complexities of maintaining, in this case, the Abrams system. But again, it is a type of training that we provide on other systems as well.

And then, the third piece: integrate this particular platform with overall maneuver operations. And this is where you begin combat maneuver training, that we are supporting the Ukrainians to be able to synchronize all of their different capabilities � their armor capabilities, their fires capabilities � and do so in a unified way that will enable them to retake territory. And so, there are multiple different platforms that � that apply to this training, and the Abrams will be just yet another platform that will be integrated with this kind of training.

And in terms of, you know, the timeframe focus, I would say that we have been really focused like a laser on capabilities that we can field very quickly to support the Ukrainians on today�s battlefield. But that has not been an exclusive focus. You have seen us invest in longer-term capabilities, especially when we know that these cap- � (inaudible) � in years to come.

So, for instance, you�ve seen us drawing down HIMARS, which, you know, the Ukrainians have used exceptionally well on the battlefield. But at the same time, we�ve also procured HIMARS that will not arrive for months, that we�ve procured by USAI because we see that enduring need for the HIMARS platform. So that�s just one example.
...

Q Hello, could you give us a sense � a little bit of the behind-the-scenes conversations with the Germans that led up to this joint decision?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks for that question. I�ll just repeat a number of the things that I said at the top, which is that we have had the constant and ongoing conversations with the Germans and a number of our European allies, frankly, throughout this conflict but in a much more intensified way over the last number of weeks.

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan has been in touch with his counterpart senior officials. The Pentagon have been in touch with their counterparts, including Secretary Austin�s trip to Germany last week � both his meetings in Berlin, as well as his convening of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. And also, as you have seen, President Biden has spoken with Chancellor Scholz several times over this month to coordinate security assistance to Ukraine.

Today�s announcement really was a product of good diplomatic conversations and part of our regular and ongoing close consultations with allies and partners on security assistance to Ukraine.

Certainly, very appreciative of Chancellor Scholz�s announcement today. It really is remarkable if you look back over the last year to see the extraordinary shift in Germany�s security policy.

In addition, of course, to the announcement that they�ve made today, they�re also providing other critical high-end capabilities to Ukraine, including the IRIS-T air defense system and MLRS system. And they committed, as we announced together a couple of weeks ago, to provide Ukraine with infantry fighting vehicles and a Patriot missile battery.

Q And did the Germans make it a precondition that the United States had to agree to send Abrams in exchange for the Leopards?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: As I said, this really was an iterative conversation that we have been having with the Germans. You know, we�ll refer to the German government for them to speak on the timing and nature of their own decision. But certainly, we have closely coordinated our security assistance with allies and partners throughout the conflicts, including Germany.

And as I said at the top, the President has been extremely focused on the importance of alliance unity, of transatlantic unity, and we have tried to make that a hallmark of everything that we have done for Ukraine throughout the 11 months of this conflict.

Q Thank you very much. Could I follow up on Nick Schifrin�s initial question? Part of the question was: What�s changed? Because you�ve had plenty of diplomatic conversations and military conversations, but as recently as a few days ago and certainly last Friday on the Secretary�s trip, there was no change in the posture � that we were all told that it would take too long (inaudible). So, what has significantly changed in the past couple of days to make this � quite a reversal? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Hey, Andrea. It�s [senior administration official] here. I think, in terms of change, one of the things that we�ve been trying to do is do the best we can to evolve the capabilities we�re providing with � to Ukraine with the war itself.

And I think as we all look at what�s happening now and what we expect to happen in the future, particularly in the Donbas area, the kinds of capabilities that Ukraine really needs are, as [senior administration official] said, combined arms maneuver capabilities � the ability to fight effectively in open terrain, particularly. And armored capabilities are a key part of that.

You�ve already seen us provide Bradleys and Strykers. And � and we�ve been talking about tanks internally, and we certainly have been talking about tanks externally with allies and partners now for quite some time, given what we expect will be the kinds of fighting that will occur in weeks and months ahead � that the fighting has not stopped over the course of the winter, nor do we expect it to.

And so, this is very much in keeping with a constant conversation that we have had with allies and partners � as well as, of course, Ukraine � about what they need.

And, you know, we�ve said all along the capabilities we�re going to provide are going to evolve with the needs of the war. And I think that�s what you�re seeing here.

I think [senior administration official] said it, really, best when talking about the fact that there are technical aspects to the Abrams which makes it a little bit more challenging than some systems that we have provided Ukraine in the past.

It is the most capable tank in the world, but it�s also the most sophisticated. And there�s supply chain issues that have to be dealt with, certainly training and maintenance issues that have to be dealt with.

And that�s why we�re doing it this way through USAI, so that we can take the time � not too much, but take enough time� to make sure that that when they get into the field, that the Ukrainians can use them and maintain them and keep them in the fight effectively on their own. And that�s � and that�s really where we are.

So, you talked about change. We have been changing throughout the last 11 months, trying to evolve with the capabilities that are most needed in the � in the fight.

And that (inaudible) unity � keeping unity inside the alliance and with our partners has also been really important for us. And so, coupled with this near-term commitment that the Germans have made on Leopards, you know, we think that this contribution by us with the Abrams represents the long-term commitment.

Q And when you talk about retaking territory, because you were earlier � (inaudible) earlier that � in an answer to AP, I believe � that this would be a unified way to retake territory. Are you talking about retaking territory in the Donbas, or are you talking about Crimea?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We�re talking about Ukrainian territory, Andrea. Territory that is, by international boundaries, recognized boundaries, Ukrainian territory.

And like I said many times before, we don�t tell the Ukrainians where to strike, where to attack, where to conduct offensive operations. That�s � these are their decisions to make, but we want to make sure that they have the right capabilities to not only defend themselves against the Russian onslaught � and we do expect that Mr. Putin and the Russian military will try to go on the offense here in coming weeks and months as the weather gets better � but also that they had the ability to retake and to reclaim their sovereign territory. And that means everything that is recognized by international borders.

Q Well, that would include Crimea.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Again, we�ve � we�ve long said, Andrea, Crimea is Ukraine. Crimea is Ukraine. We�ve never recognized the illegal annexation of Russia � of Crimea.

But where the Ukrainians decide to go and how they decide to conduct operations in their country, those are their decisions to make.
...
10:04 A.M. EST

# ? Jan 26, 2023 00:39

Mirificus: Oct 29, 2004; Kings need not raise their voices to be heard

Vietnom nom nom posted:

You use DU because of what it does after penetration. It's penetration is 'good enough', and then...

source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/may/18/armstrade.kosovo

Effect of Tungsten Particle Shape on Dynamic Deformation and Fracture Behavior of Tungsten Heavy Alloys posted:

The effect of the tungsten particle shape on the dynamic deformation and fracture behavior of tungsten heavy alloys was investigated. Dynamic torsional tests were conducted using a torsional Kolsky bar for five alloys, one of which was fabricated by the double-cycled sintering process, and then the test data were compared via microstructures, mechanical properties, adiabatic shear banding, and fracture mode. The dynamic torsional test results indicated that in the double-sintered tungsten alloy whose tungsten particles were very coarse and irregularly shaped, cleavage fracture occurred in the central area of the gage section with little shear deformation, whereas shear deformation was concentrated in the central area of the gage section in the other alloys. The deformation and fracture behavior of the double-sintered alloy correlated well with the observation of the impacted penetrator specimen and the in situ fracture test results, i.e., microcrack initiation at coarse tungsten particles and cleavage crack propagation through tungsten particles. These findings suggested that the cleavage fracture mode would be beneficial for the self-sharpening effect, and, thus, the improvement of the penetration performance of the double-sintered tungsten heavy alloy would be expected.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03187818

Development of Tungsten Heavy Alloy with Hybrid Structure for Kinetic Energy Penetrator posted:

A new tungsten heavy alloy with hybrid structure was manufactured for the kinetic energy penetrator. The tungsten heavy alloy is composed of two parts: core region is molybdenum added heavy alloy to promote the self-sharpening; outer part encompassing the core is conventional heavy alloy to sustain severe load in a muzzle during firing. The fracture surfaces of the specimen is observed after ballistic tests. The core region revealed brittle behavior with W/W inter-granular fracture which activates self-sharpening. On the other hand, outer part exhibited conventional ductile fracture mode. From ballistic test, it was found that the penetration performance of the hybrid structure tungsten heavy alloy is higher than that of conventional heavy alloy. This heavy alloy is thought to be very useful for the penetrator in the near future.

https://www.scientific.net/MSF.534-536.1249

# ? Jan 26, 2023 00:51

Nelson Mandingo: Mar 27, 2005

According to CNBC the variant being shipped is the M1A1. That's not the M1A2 modern variant but that's still going to crush just about anything Russia could field. The problem is it's only 30 tanks, which isn't enough for the entire war. But still that's some big hardware.

# ? Jan 26, 2023 04:42

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Nelson Mandingo posted:

According to CNBC the variant being shipped is the M1A1. That's not the M1A2 modern variant but that's still going to crush just about anything Russia could field. The problem is it's only 30 tanks, which isn't enough for the entire war. But still that's some big hardware.

I tried to find an underlying source for that and I think they maybe are just confused and think "M1A1" is the general designation for Abrams tanks. The official word is that they aren't saying exactly what model it is. Since they're procuring them with a process that's supposed to take months, I'd be pretty surprised if it was the old M1A1.

# ? Jan 26, 2023 04:57

Greggster: Aug 14, 2010

Apologies if this wanders into Clancy Theory Chat, are there any combat observers in place (I understand if this information is classified) from other nations in the Ukraine right now?
I figure that this war is probably the closest we'll get to a near peer war in the modern time where all the newfangled tech of today are actually tested and used (some to great effect) and being on hand to see just how devastating it can be must be an analysts wet dream.
Will this also be (if/when) the first time that Leopards and Challengers are used against russian armour?

# ? Jan 26, 2023 05:12

TK-42-1: Oct 30, 2013; looks like we have a bad transmitter

We�re (nato) watching everything going on as best we can. One of the most important gifts we�re giving to AFU is intel. I�d be shocked if we weren�t doing a lot of debriefing too.

# ? Jan 26, 2023 05:23

Vietnom nom nom: Oct 24, 2000; Forum Veteran

Libluini posted:

you should have looked at details of what a TC-penetrator does when breaking through armor, because not knowing that a TC-penetrator sends a shower of molten metal droplets into the interior of a tank to horrifically bake everything inside makes your post look a bit silly

even a tiny rupture caused by a TC-dart can kill everyone inside the tank*

*At least when using German KE-sabots! I just blindly assume other nation's TC-ammunition works the same way, because physics are cruel.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I know it isn't something with a lot of peer reviewed literature on it, just saying that the traditional argument for DU has been its overall lethality, not just penetrative potential.

Mirificus posted:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03187818

https://www.scientific.net/MSF.534-536.1249

Both of these for instance just say that you can build a good penetrator out of tungsten by using specialized/multiple alloys.

The lack of large scale tank battles using a variety of modern tanks and ammo is probably the leading reason this sort of thing is still debated so much (and why the World of Tanks/War Thunder forums create so many intelligence leaks over arguments). I have a feeling there will be damaged/destroyed tanks recovered from the coming battles that will be pulled into labs and studied.

# ? Jan 26, 2023 05:46

Vietnom nom nom: Oct 24, 2000; Forum Veteran

TK-42-1 posted:

We�re (nato) watching everything going on as best we can. One of the most important gifts we�re giving to AFU is intel. I�d be shocked if we weren�t doing a lot of debriefing too.

These are the NATO/NATO aligned flight tracks for intelligence gathering from the past month alone:

https://twitter.com/Orion__int/status/1617215293109198849

# ? Jan 26, 2023 05:54

Oscar aint no Slouch: Apr 29, 2014

Greggster posted:

Apologies if this wanders into Clancy Theory Chat, are there any combat observers in place (I understand if this information is classified) from other nations in the Ukraine right now?
I figure that this war is probably the closest we'll get to a near peer war in the modern time where all the newfangled tech of today are actually tested and used (some to great effect) and being on hand to see just how devastating it can be must be an analysts wet dream.
Will this also be (if/when) the first time that Leopards and Challengers are used against russian armour?

Remember when Trump leaked the capabilities of America's best spy satellites?

It's guaranteed a lot of these are staring intently at Ukrainian battlefields 24/7

However, while it's entirely possible the CIA have some Jack Ryans running around on the ground too, they would never admit as much and would call you crazy to even suggest such a thing were possible

# ? Jan 26, 2023 06:21

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

Oscar aint no Slouch posted:

It's guaranteed a lot of these are staring intently at Ukrainian battlefields 24/7

Obviously no one is going to provide detailed info, but this much can be pointed out plainly:

-Ukraine is a cloudy place.
-Fixed test launch sites being prepped for a well known test are small. Ukraine and Russia are big.
-24/7 isn�t really how orbital mechanics work.

# ? Jan 26, 2023 06:26

GhostofJohnMuir: Aug 14, 2014; anime is not good

mlmp08 posted:

Obviously no one is going to provide detailed info, but this much can be pointed out plainly:

-24/7 isn�t really how orbital mechanics work.

i believe nro has launched payloads to geosynchronous orbit before, but my assumption is that anything with an orbit that far out is involved in signals intelligence, not photo reconnaissance (though maybe that's just what the three letter agencies would want me to think)

i'm sure that the military and civilian embassy staff working in ukraine to coordinate the delivery of military supply must be getting reams of useful big picture information just from things like spare part and additional ammo requests, and the general interactions with their ukrainian counterparts. i'm a bit leary that today's vastly expanded battlefield and the tense political situation allow for crimean or russo-japanese war style direct military observation by third parties

# ? Jan 26, 2023 07:08

Oscar aint no Slouch: Apr 29, 2014

mlmp08 posted:

-Ukraine is a cloudy place.
-Fixed test launch sites being prepped for a well known test are small. Ukraine and Russia are big.
-24/7 isn�t really how orbital mechanics work.

Is this really such a stretch of the imagination?

24/7 is exactly how satellite constellations work. Really once you get them up there the opportunity cost for a live feed of something below is zero. I'm sure the largest conventional war since WW2 involving a near peer has something worth watching. I don't know if you can put FLIR into space but I wouldn't put it past the American defense budget to make something like that possible too.

The line of contact is well over 1000km long so I'm sure if your preferred target is obscured you can go down the list. And the Russians are known to use unencrypted baofeng radios and civilian cell calls to coordinate, so I'm sure there are enough hints dropped for where to look.

Even civilians can track where the artillery is dropping https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/2022/10/04/scorched-earth-using-nasa-fire-data-to-monitor-war-zones/

# ? Jan 26, 2023 07:36

Charliegrs: Aug 10, 2009

It's going to be pretty wild what the Ukrainian military looks like in a year or 2. Like you'll have a military with Abrams Tanks, patriot missiles, and submarine drones, alongside BMP1s, GRAD rocket launchers, and MI8 helicopters etc. Like a mix of some of the most high tech equipment the west can provide with all the really old Soviet era legacy stuff they still have.

# ? Jan 26, 2023 08:09

Paracausal: Sep 5, 2011; Oh yeah, baby. Frame your suffering as a masterpiece. Only one problem - no one's watching. It's boring, buddy, boring as death.

mlmp08 posted:

Obviously no one is going to provide detailed info, but this much can be pointed out plainly:

-Ukraine is a cloudy place.
-Fixed test launch sites being prepped for a well known test are small. Ukraine and Russia are big.
-24/7 isn�t really how orbital mechanics work.

There are thermal and other specialist satellites that don't just collect visible spectrum light
24/7 can be done with geostationary satellites, it's getting them there that's the problem

Paracausal fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Jan 26, 2023

# ? Jan 26, 2023 08:34

Antigravitas: Dec 8, 2019; Die Rettung fuer die Landwirte:

mlmp08 posted:

Obviously no one is going to provide detailed info, but this much can be pointed out plainly:

-Ukraine is a cloudy place.
-Fixed test launch sites being prepped for a well known test are small. Ukraine and Russia are big.
-24/7 isn�t really how orbital mechanics work.

It is very convenient that Germany launched a SAR spy sat recently. The existence of the SAR-Lupe family and SARah-1 isn't well known, but I read news that Ukraine is receiving intelligence. There's a delay, of course, but SAR doesn't care about clouds and can be very high resolution.

# ? Jan 26, 2023 09:18

Nelson Mandingo: Mar 27, 2005

Cicero posted:

I tried to find an underlying source for that and I think they maybe are just confused and think "M1A1" is the general designation for Abrams tanks. The official word is that they aren't saying exactly what model it is. Since they're procuring them with a process that's supposed to take months, I'd be pretty surprised if it was the old M1A1.

I believe the designations is M1 Abrams is the original 80's version and the A1 designation was the late 80's / 90's upgrade, with the A2 as the modern super battle tank.

Nelson Mandingo fucked around with this message at 10:56 on Jan 26, 2023

# ? Jan 26, 2023 10:21

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Nelson Mandingo posted:

I believe the designations is M1 Abrams is the original 80's and the A1 designation was the 90's upgrade, with the A2 as the modern super battle tank.

A1 production started in 1985, and beyond the baseline A2 there are successive upgrades SEPv1, SEPv2, SEPv3 (started rollout in 2020), and SEPv4 is currently under development.

But I think whoever wrote that CNBC article didn't know any of this and just said M1A1.

# ? Jan 26, 2023 10:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 03:25

NTRabbit: Aug 15, 2012; i wear this armour to protect myself from the histrionics of hysterical women

bitches

Nelson Mandingo posted:

I believe the designations is M1 Abrams is the original 80's and the A1 designation was the 90's upgrade, with the A2 as the modern super battle tank.

The M1 was the initial production run with the old 105mm gun, the A1 was from 1985 onwards with the 120mm gun, the A2 was from 1992 with other improvements, and all the seppo tanks since then have been 1999 onwards

NTRabbit fucked around with this message at 10:36 on Jan 26, 2023

# ? Jan 26, 2023 10:33

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > War in Ukraine: thread feedback session open unttil Saturday (i'll regret this)

«‹›275 »