Russia invasion of Ukraine

[Yu Ominae]

https://mobile.twitter.com/olex_sche...03146501554176

Word is that the SBU managed to snoop in a "Truconf" meeting between collaborators and officials from Moscow.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Renegade334

scrounging up a lot of the 105mm ammo it used to shoot in its heyday (never mind the fact that, with the exception of a few countries, many European countries have since switched to 120mm/125mm and entrusted 105mm to their light field artillery).

Wouldn't it be more cost effective to replace the 105mm cannon with the bigger one if there is more ammunition available?

I remember reading that in WWII there was a "battle of the sizes" with the the cannons diamater in the US and japanese navy ships; even if they do not intend to, making an statement about "looking into the matter" would make putin fume about having "the smallest one" >: )

Originally Posted by Yu Ominae

Word is that the SBU managed to snoop in a "Truconf" meeting between collaborators and officials from Moscow.

Now they need will need meet "in the flesh" to make sure they are not hacked ... say hello to himars

[Renegade334]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

Wouldn't it be more cost effective to replace the 105mm cannon with the bigger one if there is more ammunition available?

Retrofitting a 44-caliber 120mm smoothbore gun into the Leo 1 has been attempted in the past: it's called the Leopard 1A6 prototype.



What you see over the turret cheeks are armor appliques to provide extra frontal protection, but the turret underneath it all is still a Leopard 1A5's. Speaking of which:


^-- The 1A5 was originally designed to be able to mount a 120mm if required, but no one ever did it as far as I know - no point upgunning a 1A5 if you already have the Leo 2 concurrently up for sale by Germany. I don't think the conversion kits for the Rh120/L44 mantlets, trunnions, stabilizers, recoil systems and cradles still exist, either.

Also, swapping the guns would require Germany's goodwill to supply spare Rh120/L44s, and that would be another source of delays and political jockeying. M256s wouldn't do - IIRC they aren't exactly identical to the Rh120 they were derived from and therefore require some modifications to fit into a Rh120's cradle.

Note that Belgium does have its own ammo-producing companies (which are now owned by Nexter, if I'm not mistaken?) but I have no idea how large is the country's remaining stockpile of 105mm rounds, since they divested themselves of the Leopard 1 in favor of the Piranha IIIC DF90 (with a 90mm main gun)...which, incidentally, has recently been slated for replacement by the French Jaguar EBRC. Right now, the Land Component shouldn't have 105mm-slinging tanks anymore, so those rounds are also in question. The Belgian ammo companies should still be producing 105mm rounds for the Cockerill 105mm turrets, though.

I remember reading that in WWII there was a "battle of the sizes" with the the cannons diamater in the US and japanese navy ships; even if they do not intend to, making an statement about "looking into the matter" would make putin fume about having "the smallest one" >: )

For the record the US did test a single 457mm (18-inch) gun, which was the closest thing to the Yamato's 460mm (18.1''), but the Navy decided that the 16in/406mm performance was quite exemplary and the tradeoffs (bigger and heavier rifles with beefier recoil dampeners, smaller barbette and magazine capacity, increase of the ship's overall weight) were not worth it.
It's incidentally one of the reasons why several NATO countries keep exploring, every couple of years, the 130mm and 140mm calibers but always fall back on the tried-and-true 120mm: it's still powerful enough to defeat what it's likely to face on the battlefield. The 140mm's predicted target, the Soviet FST-3, never materialized, to boot - providing another reason not to upgun. And, of course, there's the recurrent problem of budgetary issues and priorities.
That said, the US just adopted a new "tank" (though technically it's not considered a tank) called the MPF, but it's not supposed to go up against enemy tanks but provide highly mobile firepower to infantry. It's using 105mm instead of the 120mm for that reason - and if ever the Leo 1 gets sent to Ukraine, I suppose it'll be assigned that role: infantry support.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

Wouldn't it be more cost effective to replace the 105mm cannon with the bigger one if there is more ammunition available?

The United States has up until very recently operated Strykers with the same 105mm rifled gun that Leopard 1's used. Ammo availability for that ammo is probably only an issue on the scale of individual countries, not NATO as a whole.

[Renegade334]

The Belgian company MECAR produces M393E3 HEP-T and M1060A3 APFSDS-T, both of which are 105mm and L7-compatible. Dunno if they'll be amenable to the idea of making a donation.

For other ammo types - I do not know if the Leopard 1's 105mm gun is rated for the M900 - I remember reading an old warning that this particular round was only cleared for the M1, but other vehicle types (e.g. M60) would result in recoil mechanism failure. And even so, only certain production batches of the 105mm M68 gun were cleared for firing the M900 - older units were at risk of breech failure.
And even if the Leo 1 was greenlit for M900, this particular long rod penetrator uses a depleted uranium core, which makes it more sensitive for export to Ukraine.

Germany might still have its old 105mm stockpiles (which use tungsten penetrators rather than DU), but with the big post-Cold War drawdown and the switch to 120mm, a grain of salt is in order.

Either way, it's still a long way until UA gets Leo 1s. Odds are that the Leo 2s will arrive on the Eastern theater first.

[Yu Ominae]

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarV...rom_the_green/

Karelian separatists conducting sabotage ops.

[mangamuscle]

Russian forces allegedly burn Ukrainian books in occupied Luhansk

Yeah, putin's russia is going to de-Nazi-fy Ukraine and for that they sending their residents to concentration camps, burning books in fire pyres and all of this is necessary for russia's survival. I bet their top propaganda officials were sent to the front-line, because this level of ineptitude can't be explained otherwise.

[Key Board]

so Iran, being so isolated from the world, had to double down in supporting their lifeline Russia.
They are now actively manufacturing and sending drones to fight Ukraine, a country they never had any historical conflict with.

This war has validated what I feel about multipolarism. It will never happen again.
What all of this is potentially leading to is bipolarism, and history shows that didn't make the world any safer either. Proponents of it are naïve.

//

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Key Board

so Iran, being so isolated from the world, had to double down in supporting their lifeline Russia.
They are now actively manufacturing and sending drones to fight Ukraine, a country they never had any historical conflict with.

This war has validated what I feel about multipolarism. It will never happen again.
What all of this is potentially leading to is bipolarism, and history shows that didn't make the world any safer either. Proponents of it are naïve.

//

History repeats itself.

[Yu Ominae]

Why am I not surprised at this?

[ramlaen]

Relevant because Russia and Wagner.

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1622878520216113153

On the 5-year anniversary of the Battle of Khasham, the Grey Zone channel admits that Wagner's assault on US positions was pre-planned. They say the Russian military's Aerospace Forces and Air Defense Forces were supposed to support the operation.

[Roger Rambo]

So Germany and a few other European countries apparently going to try to send up to 178 Leopard 1 tanks to Ukraine, though at a somewhat drawn out timescale.

While the Leopard 1 is *very* lightly armored by modern tank standards and is long in the tooth, the A5 variant most countries have in their storage still has some fairly decent fire control systems, sighting optics and night vision. It's outclassed by Russia's most modernized (but limited in number) T-80 and T-90 tanks, but in general seems like it would hold up against Russia's older/less modernized tanks they've been pulling out of storage.

What's probably most notable about the Leopard 1's is the total numbers. Most of the newer western MBT's are being pledged in low numbers, presumably for training cadres while politicking decides how many can be sent in total. Germany Denmark and the Netherlands coming up with almost 200 tanks right off the bat is pretty notable.

[Ithekro]

With the 90 or so Leapord 2s, the 30 or so Abrams, and the Challenger 2s, that is about 300 NATO main battle tanks coming within the next year or so.

Most of which are on par or superior to the majority of the Russian tanks being used for the invasion. Only the top of the line modernize T80 ans T90 tanks would be on par. And the T62s being reactivated will be quite inferior. At least one on one. Numbers might tell in the Russians favor, if they van even deploy numbers without getting hammered via superior intel and drone/artillery strikes.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

With the 90 or so Leapord 2s, the 30 or so Abrams, and the Challenger 2s, that is about 300 NATO main battle tanks coming within the next year or so.

Most of which are on par or superior to the majority of the Russian tanks being used for the invasion. Only the top of the line modernize T80 ans T90 tanks would be on par. And the T62s being reactivated will be quite inferior. At least one on one. Numbers might tell in the Russians favor, if they van even deploy numbers without getting hammered via superior intel and drone/artillery strikes.

With the Leopard 1 that needs a lot of caveats. Russia has a lot of middle tier T-72 that have similar or even better optics and thermals compared to the Leo 1, along with a lot more armor and moderately more firepower. And the small number of most modern T-80 and T-90 tanks Russia uses are going to be *much* better than the Leopard 1's.

That said. Russia *is* using a lot of older Soviet Era tanks. The kind with clunky cold war era thermal illumnator search lights that you don't want to actually flick on on a modern battlefield where you'd be broadcasting "shoot me" to anyone with passive thermal sights. And so is Ukraine. So even Leopard 1's are going to have an appeal even if they're less well protected than better protected Ukrainian T-64 and T-72 tanks that have more primitive night vision gear.

[Ithekro]

Also depends on Russian numbers. Not just in terms of hardware but manpower. If the rumors of two million drafted soldiers comes to pass, what holds against the wall of meat.

[TheForsaken]

Originally Posted by Key Board

This war has validated what I feel about multipolarism. It will never happen again.
What all of this is potentially leading to is bipolarism, and history shows that didn't make the world any safer either. Proponents of it are naïve.

What is your suggestion then?
Everyone capitulating to the US? All hail American hegemony?

[Ithekro]

Well its bipolar again, which was the state of the Cold War for decades, or perhaps somehow making countries as akin to states under the United Nations? Multipolar seems to not be happening, and people reject any single country from being a sole superpower, be it the United States, Russia, China, or even going back all the way the the days of the British Empire.

Can we as a species grow up enough to have a planetary government?

[Key Board]

Originally Posted by TheForsaken

What is your suggestion then?
Everyone capitulating to the US? All hail American hegemony?

"When education is not liberating, the dream of the oppressed is to become the oppressor. - Paulo Freire"

American hegemony is a byproduct of WW2, the very same war that destroyed multipolarism. And the US didn't even start that one.

If you're going to start a new power bloc the bare minimum is to not include one of the countries that started WW2 and even now, still wants to make the empire great again.

//

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by TheForsaken

What is your suggestion then?
Everyone capitulating to the US? All hail American hegemony?

Pax Americana is already a thing.

[Roger Rambo]

While there's a lot to criticize about Pax Americana, the idea that *any* multipolar substitute for it is intrinsically better isn't very convincing to me. At least not when the primary new pole is a nakedly expressionistic Russian Empire wanting to lord over it's former dominion without even a fig leaf of progressive communist ideology. I'm not sure how on the whole that works to make the world a better place.

It's sorta a moot point though. The best case scenario for Russia at is they hold on to most of the patches of bombed out annexed territories at an astronomical cost to economic and military strength. This is a horrible outcome for Ukraine, but it doesn't really get Russia anything useful. With NATO countries upping their defense budgets and having weened themselves off Russian gas, this is not a springboard for Russia to reassert itself as a renewed super power that can do anything to really check Pax Americana.