• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:#23,579]Ukraine War Thread

Jredbaron96 said:
I am German. My mother is a native of Rhineland-Pfalz.

The idea that this was anything other than an embarrassment for Scholz and the German government, not to say German policy, is a rather crude joke.
Click to expand...

 
JANFU said:
Polls are politicians life's blood.
What about the rest?? Right, wrong, what???
Click to expand...
If polls are to be believed (and German ones are usually quite accurate) the German public is split pretty much down the middle even on delivery of LEOs or ANY other brand of "offensive battle tanks".

Neither side (pro or contra) gets above 45pct there (around 10 -11 pct being the usual "I dunno"), so that's no help in playing to the gallery for Scholz either.

Right or Wrong are both convenient sound-bites for the political play, reality is made of sterner stuff.

And that reality is one of how much NATO is prone to weaken its Eastern flank (towards Russia) by depleting its own resources of defence.

That is an especially sensitive issue with Germany, the armed forces of which are seen by pessimists to be barely at 30 pct functionality.

That latter part being down to mistakes made by practically any past government and financial strategists, all of whom preferred to follow their own bias of convenience, rather than objectively analyze the actual geo-political landscape and accept the indisputable results as a basis for formulating policy, no matter how this would have meant to go against their preferred agenda.

That's a lengthy exercise in verbosity to state, more simply, that Germany has flunked issues of its military for decades and now cannot, obviously, remedy the wholse sorry situation just overnight.
 
I have been watching the plans for the tanks with interest: Poland says it will send Leopards even without German consent; Germany rushes to consent; US rushes to send Abrams. Who will get there first? Why is Leopard pictured in Slovakia? I guess they use them, too? I don't think they're sending any to Ukraine.
 
NewfieMom said:
I have been watching the plans for the tanks with interest: Poland says it will send Leopards even without German consent; Germany rushes to consent; US rushes to send Abrams. Who will get there first? Why is Leopard pictured in Slovakia? I guess they use them, too? I don't think they're sending any to Ukraine.
Click to expand...
The Leopards will get there first because theyre already in Europe, and the supply chains can easily be integrated in Ukraine when compared with the American tanks. The Leopard also uses a diesel engine that the Ukrainians are more familiar with.

The M1 Abrams will have to be sent in by sea, and they will need to have their own unique supply chains because the M1 has a jet engine that needs aviation fuel instead of diesel, so we're looking at least 6 months for the Abrams to become operational. These big issues were the reasons why the US wasnt keen to send the M1, and only did it because the Germans demanded they commit first.

The British Challenger II will also need their own separate supply chain due to their main gun, so all this could be one hell of a logistics problem for the Ukrainians. But then again, I doubt theyll complain because they need it all.



Spain is gonna send 50+ Leopards? Holy cow. :oops:
 
PoS said:
The Leopards will get there first because theyre already in Europe, and the supply chains can easily be integrated in Ukraine when compared with the American tanks. The Leopard also uses a diesel engine that the Ukrainians are more familiar with.

The M1 Abrams will have to be sent in by sea, and they will need to have their own unique supply chains because the M1 has a jet engine that needs aviation fuel instead of diesel, so we're looking at least 6 months for the Abrams to become operational. These big issues were the reasons why the US wasnt keen to send the M1, and only did it because the Germans demanded they commit first.

The British Challenger II will also need their own separate supply chain due to their main gun, so all this could be one hell of a logistics problem for the Ukrainians. But then again, I doubt theyll complain because they need it all.



Spain is gonna send 50+ Leopards? Holy cow. :oops:
Click to expand...

I wonder if Spain has been maintaining them?
 
EnigmaO01 said:
I wonder if Spain has been maintaining them?
Click to expand...
I think most of them are in storage. But then again, the tank crews will need to be trained, the Leopards prepped then shipped by train, and the supply chain needs to be set up.

So we're looking at least 2-3 months until the Leopards appear on the battlefield.

On the other hand, the previous news reported that the M2 Bradleys and Strykers were already being committed, so they should be deployed ahead, perhaps in a month or two, maybe less.
 
It keeps being stated that the M1A2 Abrams requires jet fuel and that the engine is complex.
However on Military Today it states the following:

The M1A2 Abrams is powered by Avco Lycoming (now Honeywell) AGT1500 gas turbine engine, developing 1 500 horsepower. Essentially it is a modified helicopter engine, adapted for use on tanks. It is a multi-fuel engine, which can run on any grade of petrol, diesel, aviation fuel or kerosene. This engine has impressive performance and is compact for its power output. So even though the Abrams tank is heavy and bulky, it is surprisingly agile. It is faster than many other tanks and has superior cross-country performance. Also the engine is remarkably quiet. Due to this feature the Abrams is even nicknamed the Whispering Death. Its gas turbine engine has servicing intervals significantly longer than those of diesel engines, however is troublesome to maintain and has very high fuel consumption comparing with diesels. Engine can be replaced in field conditions within 30 minutes.
Click to expand...

So it is a fuel hog so more fuel transport trucks will be required but it can burn most any hydrocarbon fuel you dump in its belly. And while Ukraine may not have turbine mechanics in its armed forces, the engine has longer service intervals than diesels and can be field swapped in a half hour, so that cannot be too complex.

What am I missing? Are the weapons and support systems that much different than the Leos?
Does the rest of the M1A2 require more servicing to stay operational than the Leos?
I know with aircraft they often list how many hours of service are required for hours of flight operation. The Swedish JAS 39 Gripen fighter requires less service time per hour of flight time than most fighters, is there a similar ratio for comparing tanks?

So basically the M1A2s will require 20% more fuel transports and a separate transport system for engines, plus somewhere save to repair those brought back.

Those requirements don't seem insurmountable....
 

PoS said:
I think most of them are in storage. But then again, the tank crews will need to be trained, the Leopards prepped then shipped by train, and the supply chain needs to be set up.

So we're looking at least 2-3 months until the Leopards appear on the battlefield.

On the other hand, the previous news reported that the M2 Bradleys and Strykers were already being committed, so they should be deployed ahead, perhaps in a month or two, maybe less.
Click to expand...
And with increased numbers as Ukrainian Ru kit lost is replaced with NATO standard. With those 2 and Leopards, Ukraine will have the ability to tear thru Russian lines.
 
  • A U.S. official said similar requests were made to several other countries that had the system in active service or in storage.
  • The senior Israeli official said Dror Shalom, the head of the policy department in the Israeli Defense Ministry, told his U.S. counterparts there is no change in Israel’s policy not to provide weapons systems to Ukraine.
  • According to the Israeli official, Shalom told his Pentagon counterpart the Israeli Hawk systems are “obsolete” and can’t function because of how long they've been in storage without maintenance.
  • But the Israeli officials say Shalom’s answer to the Pentagon’s request was not accurate. They stressed that while the launchers might be completely dysfunctional, the hundreds of Hawk interceptors Israel has in storage can be refurbished and used.
Click to expand...
www.axios.com

U.S. asked Israel for its Hawk missiles to send to Ukraine

Israel told the U.S. there is no change in Israel’s policy not to provide weapons systems to Ukraine.
www.axios.com www.axios.com
 
Jredbaron96 said:
I am German. My mother is a native of Rhineland-Pfalz.

The idea that this was anything other than an embarrassment for Scholz and the German government, not to say German policy, is a rather crude joke.
Click to expand...
Were you born in Germany or the US?
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Yeah, this "Scholz making the German government look ineffective and indecisive was just 4D chess" just tells me you didn't follow anything related to this subject as it actually developed.

Neither his critics nor his supporters have argued that Scholz really wants to deliver tanks to Ukraine and every action he's taken in the past several weeks has made that abundantly clear, to the point where his domestic opposition is grilling him for it.

There was nothing "organized" about this, and tells me you haven't been following German politics. On Saturday Mützenich was saying that Germany couldn't act "unilaterally", despite the fact that multiple European states were pushing for tanks to be sent. After the Ramstein meeting Scholz and his allies were insisting on Austin's visit having been a re-affirmation of American-Germany unity, only for the US to give to the German press details of their conversation with Pistorious and Chancellery Minister Schmit which demonstrated the opposite; the US was grilling Germany over its failure to provide tanks.

Part of the problem is that the Germans didn't even know what their own position was, and they gave contradictory answers. First the defense minister says "Germany would be part of a concentrated effort by multiple powers to supply tanks to Ukraine", only for the Chancellery to walk back that statement. On sunday Baerbock said that Germany would consent to the export of tanks if officially requested, but then refused to clarify whether that was her opinion or that of the German government.

Scholz has damaged Germany's international reputation with this stunt, and the German defense industry.
Click to expand...
I concur on the first part of the last sentence (bolded by me), on the second (last) part I proffer that the damage was already done continuously long before Scholz or most of his predecessors took office.

That having been due to many German governments having preferred to organize their policies along the lines of own convenient agendas, rather than engaging in objective analyses of the true geo-political landscape.

Which takes nothing from Scholz having added to the catastrophe, which I think is what you meant as well.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Why can't both sides stop fighting, and, also, Russia retreat back to the pre-2014 border? Why is that such a big ask?
Click to expand...
Because Putin can by now not afford to.

Dictators need to present their cowed populace with a common cause and war (i.e. the whole country being under the same threat as in the Great Patriotic War) is a reliable instrument to keep the valve screwed down.

Withdrawal would be an admission of defeat and he'd be as much toast as the last Czar was when his armies were defeated.
 
Chagos said:
Because Putin can by now not afford to.

Dictators need to present their cowed populace with a common cause and war (i.e. the whole country being under the same threat as in the Great Patriotic War) is a reliable instrument to keep the valve screwed down.

Withdrawal would be an admission of defeat and he'd be as much toast as the last Czar was when his armies were defeated.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I believe this. It seems to me it's very easy for every dictator, even Putin, to imprison or assassinate anyone who disagrees with them. There is really no real check on Putin's power. I'm not suggesting that he wouldn't suffer politically. I'm suggesting that there is no damage to his reputation so severe a few well placed bullets couldn't fix.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom