I am genuinely not sure now that it makes much difference - there are really two reactions in Western military circles right now. One is ‘those Russian designs are crap’, in which case your point about the utility of the Leopard I is well-taken. But the other reaction is that the era of the MBT might be done, the ability of small ATGMs to attack lightly armoured areas of the tank has advanced too far. The Americans have had reservations about developing a replacement for the M1 for precisely this reason, and their observations of war in Ukraine have bolstered that. The Leopard 2 might be only marginally more robust than the Leopard 1 in the face of the current generation of anti-tank weapons, and the key lies in supporting them correctly - which the Russians have performed woefully.
Only politically necessary, in practice any nuclear action will render existing political realities void.
Negative.
Absolutely. It would rewrite everything. But don’t make the mistake that it couldn’t be done. Imagine another Trump style president who had some particular personal animosity with Russia and it’s very easy to see it happen. As to whether Biden would ever get close to such a decision, that’s another question. I feel that if Putin wants to push it then he absolutely would. And regardless of whether this is the case, it is actually very advantageous for that perception to exist. It is vital that Putin recalculates that there is a realistic possibility Russia will be destroyed if he oversteps the mark.
A bit surprised that you never mention the greatest killer, indirect Ukrainian fire. Otherwise agree.
Really? I thought that they had far more in reserve. I stand corrected then.
Decomissioned leopard 1 is the reserve. The German army has been starved for decsdes under CDU. They dont have spare parts and no reserves. Can only field an armoured brigade under perfect conditions. Yet Rheinmetall makes state of the art so rearmament under Scholz new program will be interesting.
Yes, this is known. There are no such vehicles so this is just background noise. Transport happens on Ukr responsibility and involves smuggling
Different issue. The ability of distant artillery to hit static tanks is not nearly as troubling for Western armoured design and use thinking. It takes a direct hit, or damned close, to destroy a MBT. Conventionally, that shouldn’t happen much. In the paper-scissors-rock of combined arms, the artillery disrupts the infantry support but will not do much to the armour - maybe a lucky shot here or there. The effectiveness of Ukrainian artillery is a direct function of the use of drones for fire spotting, and the Russians seemingly have no counter for that at all. Western tanks have an imperfect counter, their ECM was not designed to address that spotting function, but you can bet that changes in a matter of months. Most of that spotting has been done with commercial, off-the-shelf civilian drones.
Plus, at the most basic, Russian command and control has been borderline absurd. When the 155mm shells are crashing down, you radio in the vectors for your counterbattery, and move 250 meters. That seems beyond the Russian army to manage.
Indeed most RU armour losses are from indirect fire with cheap commericial drones spotting. Used with success against camping armour and slow moving columns.
Good points.
I’m so used to seeing Challenger tanks firing accurately whilst moving at speed that one of the things that’s really stood out from the videos is how static the Russian tanks are.
It is not even the firing while moving part. They are simply static when not in combat. Russian training appears to tell unit commanders to keep their unit in position, button up, and ride out the artillery fire. That worked in the past, when the ability to spot and correct fire at targets behind the main line of resistance was minimal.
Sorry, misunderstood but as you say it would nearly equate to the same.
I (think I) retain the position that being part of NATO won’t make much of a difference. Moreover, I fear that this action (in Ukraine) by Putin has rendered NATO as a war deterrence axis, beyond that of glorified human shields, toothless. If the fear is of never resorting to the nuclear option or worse, being driven into inaction from the threat of a nuclear strike by the aggressor, which is completely entrenched in Europe, then the bullies of this world can win (hopefully in the short term only…).
There is nothing to stop Putin from taking a bit of one of the Baltics (or Norway or Finland), where there is limitation/blind spot to NATO’s reach and just sit there and “denazify” it for evermore. Bringing NATO troops closer to him is possibly another advantage in the long term as he will surely resort to growing local fanatics (or import some) that will begin a campaign of terror because NATO occupiers are oppressing the Russian speaking people… It seems to be his modus opperandi - nibble into the Donbas, fuel separatist sentiment, launch wider assault. The last bit is where he got impatient.
Sometimes it is hard to see any positives… Hopefully the price the Russians are paying will deter any more of these larger misadventures and as I’ve said before, he will die eventually - everyone does!
He should be sent to Mariupol!
He can’t sweat right? Can start his redemption there…
Thing is, nobody’s going to war over Prince Andrew getting whacked.
which is why he should be first to go, and take his friend Ghislaine with him for the Russians to play with.
