Germany would not block Poland from sending tanks to Ukraine - minister

Reuters via Yahoo ^ | January 22nd, 2023 | Andreas Rinke and Leigh Thomas

[Golden Eagle]

>>>> Will Poland actually send them? If so, how many? <<<<

Yes, they likely will. Enough to secure Western Ukraine, which per some think tanks may become part of Poland as part of an eventual settlement. Even if that never happens, I wouldn’t expect too many Leopards to be expended trying to push entrenched Russia out of the far east parts of Ukraine. But who knows even what stage of this we’re in right now.

[Svartalfiar]

In the age of drone warfare, can a slew of inexpensive drones take out a tank that costs orders of magnitude more?

Are tanks the battleships of WWII, IOW the last of their kind before obsolescence?

IDK, that’s why I’m asking.

It takes a decent amount of firepower to knock a tank out, much less destroy it. You need a decently solid drone to have the capability to take out a tank, not some rinky one from radio shack like most people think of drones as. The US drones are BIG. Reapers have a 66ft wingspan. Predators have a 50ft wingspan. And to take out a tank, they need to carry a decent size explosive, and have the range to get to the tank. Likely need an impact/land to ensure a hit, and actual damage, as a near-miss will do nothing at the size munition a drone swarm can carry. And, all these sizeable drones (and explosives) need to be transported close enough to the tank to have the range to get there. A squad of guys isn't gonna be able to do more than maybe one or two drones, and be mostly otherwise combat-ineffective. And countries that can afford the big drones are using high-flying drones with precision bombs/missiles, they don't need a cheap swarm carrying blocks of C4. _

Decent tankers will use cover, making them harder to find and target. Smoke, trees, camo net, etc will help hide them, and as above, the drones need to practically land on them to actually do some damage. (Again, ignoring big drones with guided munitions.) Tanks will likely have other protection too - small anti-air weapons, or something similar to the Duke antennas. Those blocked cell signals to prevent IEDs from being cell-phone activated, but set the system (or similar system) to jam known/detected UAV freqs. No comm/control, no drones attacking.

So yes, drones are definitely a danger, but they can be countered and aren't the easy complete-tank-destroyer that the media makes them out to be. At least, not the small drone swarm type anyway.

[Red6]

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-uk-sending-apache-helicopters-ukraine-1774144

Who knows...

Maybe the UK will after all, but it does not appear so as of 1/16/23.

Nonetheless, the UK and Poles are probably some of the most forward leaning/aggressive regards support to Ukraine.

[crz]

Drop a vacuum bomb over the top of them and the tank might survive, but the crew will have their brains splattered all over the inside.
..or their guts sucked right out of them.

[MarMema]

Good! Thanks! No helicopters.

[MarMema]

Surface ships and tanks are obsolete and when the next shooting war starts between America and a near peer competitor the carriers will not last long.

Makes perfect sense.

[MarMema]

Right?

Zelensky after tanks arrive -> “Hello? Somalia?”

[Red6]

Tanks are not obsolete.

The tank of old is obsolete, like the M1 (all these types of tanks, Leo, Chally, Abrams...), but the need for some sort of heavy firepower that can penetrate an enemies defenses and pursue them remains.

These are all 1970s tech in reality and only alive today because the Cold War ended. The development of more modern systems slowed.

Today we keep these older tanks alive with applique subsystems but these tanks have long outlived their designed life. The battlefield has changed. The idea that massive armor on a turret front will keep you safe isn’t going to work when Mr. Missile hits your roof, that is true. What only we had in 1997 (Javelin) or few others had (TOW2B top attack) is today common.

However, that does not mean the tank is dead. It means that we are in desperate need of new maneuver warfare systems that replace the aging M1 and M2. Vehicles where active soft and hard-kill systems, advanced communications and networks, modular armor design that can be tweaked for the threat, newer materials in the hull and turret, designs that lend themselves to better protection against IEDs and mines, are incorporated in the tank from it’s very foundation.

When the M1 came out, there was no such thing as an Internet and networks, the integrated circuit (IC) had just came out a few years prior (the M1 had a digital fire control system and that was novel!), stealth wasn’t feasible, hard and soft kill defensive systems didn’t exist, some of the materials we have today didn’t exist (7068 Aluminum Alloy, some of the ceramics...). The threat was an AT2, AT5 (no dive or top attack), RPG7 with about 400-500mm RHA penetration... We were operating in Europe where the bridges and roads could hold the weight, we were in a defense and didn’t need to worry about massive IEDs and mines (friendly ground - thin and flat bottomed vehicles)... A lot has changed since then.

The need for that type of capability still exists. But what that vehicle will look like will change a lot. We need an entirely new system that has been developed to meet the new operational environment both in where we are fighting but also the threats, which is designed from the bottom up taking into account new technologies.

You are right that what we have today is surviving on “life support,” but if you mean to say that we no longer need that capability, you are mistaken IMHO.

[Golden Eagle]

>>>> Maybe the UK will after all, but it does not appear so as of 1/16/23. <<<< There’s a whole new sense of urgency in just the last week. You had rumblings at the WEF meeting, the Polish President and Prime Minister both publicly stating it was a legitimate question whether Ukraine would even survive, and Mark Milley coming all they way over to meet with his Ukrainian counterpart for the first time.

Now the Germans canning their defense minister to desperately get some new equipment in there stat to at least reinforce the backside, and start doing more training ops on Ukrainian soil than NATO soil, where they can be brought to bear quicker.

Both sides seem interested in just reorganizing and fortifying at the moment, but Miley admitted it would be a very tall order to bounce Russia from Ukraine this year, which means the allied forces could be primarily on the defensive.

[Red6]

We’ll see.

Two things are for sure, we are in uncharted waters and there is much instability.

Where this all leads isn’t entirely predictable at this point.

One thing I do not believe the Russians expected was the degree of support given to Ukraine by NATO nations.

We are throwing at them everything shy of our own troops: money, intel, massive military equipment, logistics, training... We started out in early 2022 with a delivery of 2,000 Javelin missiles (that was just part of one package), that’s not chump change: https://www.wionews.com/photos/ukraine-to-get-us-stingers-javelin-anti-armour-systems-is-it-a-gamechanger-463142/#ukraine-to-get-electronic-warfare-detection-systems-463132

To date we have sent something like 300,000 155mm artillery shells. We have provided things such as Excalibur (GPS guided 155mm rounds), Stinger, M777, HIMARS with rockets, drones including attack drones, electronic warfare systems... We are throwing huge amounts of material into this conflict and a lot of it is state of the art, things we are using ourselves. Others are doing the same, the UK sent 6,000 NLAW and another 4,000 in another shipment: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10645795/Britain-sends-Ukraine-6-000-missiles-flame-freedom-alive-Ukraine.html

And of course then there is a mercenary aspect where we are letting vast numbers cross the border from Poland into Ukraine to fight, we don’t try to stop them leaving the US either... We are indirectly paying for them as well: https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/20000-european-mercenaries-to-fight-with-ukrainian-army This was echoed in Time: https://time.com/6155670/foreign-fighters-ukraine-europe/

This is just 1 of 8 arms packages post war begin:

🇬🇧14 Challenger 2 tanks
🇬🇧100 modern rockets (?)
🇬🇧30 SPG AS90
🇬🇧200 IFVs
🇨🇦200 Senator armored vehicles
🇨🇦1 NASAMS air defense battery
🇵🇱14 tanks Leopard 2
🇺🇸100 Bradley’s
🇺🇸55 armored vehicles
🇺🇸100 M113’s
🇺🇸18 M109А6’s
🇺🇸250 M1117’s
🇺🇸138 HMMWV armored vehicles
🇺🇸100 Stryker’s
🇺🇸 GLSDB
🇺🇸36 105mm howitzers
🇺🇸1 Patriot Air Defense/O Battery
🇺🇸6 Nasams air defense batteries
🇺🇸18 HIMARS
🇫🇷 40(?) AMX-10RC wheeled tanks
🇫🇷 (?) Bastion armored cars
🇩🇪40 Marder IFVs
🇩🇪1 Patriot AA/O Battery
🇩🇪3 Iris-T air defense batteries + 3 TRML-4D radars
🇩🇪2 TRML-4D radar
🇩🇪🇳🇴🇩🇰16 Zuzana-2 SPG
🇳🇱🇺🇸🇨🇿120 T-72 tanks
🇳🇱1 Patriot AA/O Battery
🇸🇪50 CV-90 tanks
🇸🇪12 Archer SPG
🇮🇹🇫🇷1 AA/O SAMP/T Battery
🇨🇿26-30 SAU Dana-M2
🇪🇪10+ howitzers 155mm FH70
🇪🇪10+ howitzers 122mm D30
🇩🇰 ? SAU Caesar

It’s possible that things changed and the Apache is heading to Ukraine. But when I looked it up, it didn’t check out.

[Cronos]

which “think tanks”???

Russia propaganda.

[rfreedom4u]

So, if Germany still said no to Poland giving tanks to Ukraine, but Poland said they were doing it anyway, HOW would Germany stop it? Short of a physical invasion (again) what could they do?

[Paul R.]

Are those 18 HIMARS from existing inventory, or new production / yet to be built?

The 20 we’ve delivered so far (or maybe it’s up to 24 now?) were dribbled out in batches of 4 a month.

Even if the Ukies have received 24, that’s under 6% of the inventory we had a year ago, and, SFAIK another 50 or so were scheduled for 2022 delivery.

I guess my point is that while some of those numbers seem impressive, Russia has a huge numbers advantage, and while their weapons generally are not as good, they also are not suffering from dire lack of long range weapons or aircraft.

[Red6]

The timeline for delivery was not specified in what I read.

It was just one of the agreed upon military hardware packages for Ukraine.

I am sure we are considering other contingencies. We must.

I’m not on the “we’re depleting our inventory” bandwagon.

My point is that what we are providing is impressive. When you look at the whole picture and what we provided before the war started, 8 packages since the war started, us and our allies combined. PLUS the cash and humanitarian aid, mercenaries, logistics and sustainment (over hauling equipment in Poland for Ukraine), intel...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-intel-helped-ukraine-sink-russian-flagship-moskva-officials-say-rcna27559 (Nice to have a friend with massive SIGINT and
IMINT, an NRO).

Can you think of a conflict post WWII where we provided this much military assistance to another nation?

[Red6]

Update...

Besides the Polish which are likely older A4 versions, the Germans have now agreed to send tanks as well.

These are Leo2A6 (newer tanks albeit not the latest A7V). It appears Germany is sending 10 tanks and there is footage of them already on rail and on their way.

Sweden is also considering sending 8 Leo2’s.

So it appears Ukraine will get them after all, although in small numbers.