Live Conflict Ukraine-Russia War

[Marlii]

 

[Relic]

France will send another $187 million USD in military aid to Ukraine. While the contents of the package have not yet been released, it's widely speculated that the package will include the following, at a minimum...

- SCALP-EG Cruise missiles
- 155mm ammunition
- Additional AMX-10RC IFVs

Reznikov: France to increase defense aid for Ukraine by $187 million

France will allocate another 170 million euros (about $187 million) to provide military aid to Ukraine, Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov said following a meeting with his French counterpart.

kyivindependent.com

 

[Gary]

2). Many people have talked about how much equipment Russia has in reserve, on paper. But as I've mentioned, numerous times, a significant percentage of that equipment is poorly stored, often outdoors and has spent 30+ years rusting out. It will never be used on a battlefield. The equipment we see in this video is some of the "top of the line" equipment Wagner had at its disposal and look at the condition it's in. Imagine what an up close view of a 30 year told T-72 or a 45 year old T-62 that's been sitting outside in "storage" looks like.

You know what, as the war progress, as long is it can shoot and move + survive some shrapnel, its good to go.

Military forumers spent years debating who has the better gun, armor and all kinds of shit...only to watch those getting obliterated by mines or low yield grenade dropped on its hatch and abandoned after getting hit by one shot.

Those T-62 and 55s ? They're good to go and as relevant as any other tank operated by both side.

 

[bisbis]

Zelenskiy'le ilgili şoke eden iddia: NATO liderleri sakinleştirdi

Haber 7 - Vilnius'taki NATO Liderler Zirvesi'nin ilk gününde Zelenskiy'nin sinirli olduğu ve soğukkanlılığını yitirdiği öne sürüldü. Tavırlarından dolayı NATO liderlerinin Zelenskiy'e kızdığı ve daha sonra sakinleştirdiği ifade edildi.

www.haber7.com

"Shocking claim about Zelensky: NATO leaders calmed down


On the first day of the NATO Leaders' Summit in Vilnius, it was claimed that Zelenskiy was angry and lost his cool. It was stated that NATO leaders got angry with Zelenskiy because of his attitude and later calmed him down."

maybe he's about to go crazy! I guess he just realized it's being used! Zelensky is a lamb, they never bark.

 

[Relic]

You know what, as the war progress, as long is it can shoot and move + survive some shrapnel, its good to go.

Military forumers spent years debating who has the better gun, armor and all kinds of shit...only to watch those getting obliterated by mines or low yield grenade dropped on its hatch and abandoned after getting hit by one shot.

Those T-62 and 55s ? They're good to go and as relevant as any other tank operated by both side.

A Ukrainian soldier with a Javelin anti-armor system or an NLAW is FAR more valuable than a Russian T-55 and it's not even close. Considering the Ukrainians have millions of potential soldiers and thousands of modern anti-atmor systems as their disposal, a T-55 MBT is almost useless in modern combat. Hell, the 25mm gun on a Bradley or cannon on a CV90 will cut through armor of T-55 (or even a T-62) like butter. All those ancient society tanks are is mobile coffins, which will be followed closely by Russia's mobile crematoriums...

 

[Afif]

A Ukrainian soldier with a Javelin anti-armor system or an NLAW is FAR more valuable than a Russian T-55 and it's not even close. Considering the Ukrainians have millions of potential soldiers and thousands of modern anti-atmor systems as their disposal, a T-55 MBT is almost useless in modern combat.

Such conclusion comes from lack of understanding about how they are being deployed.


"THE RUSSIAN USE of armour has evolved significantly during the conflict... ...tanks are used as highly accurate fire support assets able to stand off at 2 km and utilise their enhanced optics to identify and knock out firing positions. It is important to note that while the introduction of older tanks such as the T62 and T55 to the field has been mocked online, these vehicles are largely being used in the role of the fire support function offered by BMPs and other infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs). They represent an increase in range, protection and kinetic effect over these IFVs, and therefore pose a serious battlefield threat when there are a limited number of anti-tank guided weapons able to reach them at their stand-off range."

https://static.rusi.org/403-SR-Russian-Tactics-web-final.pdf

Hell, the 25mm gun on a Bradley or cannon on a CV90 will cut through armor of T-55 (or even a T-62) like butter.

It won't.

 

[UkroTurk]

Such conclusion comes from lack of understanding about how they are being deployed.


"THE RUSSIAN USE of armour has evolved significantly during the conflict... ...tanks are used as highly accurate fire support assets able to stand off at 2 km and utilise their enhanced optics to identify and knock out firing positions. It is important to note that while the introduction of older tanks such as the T62 and T55 to the field has been mocked online, these vehicles are largely being used in the role of the fire support function offered by BMPs and other infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs). They represent an increase in range, protection and kinetic effect over these IFVs, and therefore pose a serious battlefield threat when there are a limited number of anti-tank guided weapons able to reach them at their stand-off range."

https://static.rusi.org/403-SR-Russian-Tactics-web-final.pdf

It won't.

25mm cal has almost same as Soviet 30mm ballistic effect.

 

[Gary]

A Ukrainian soldier with a Javelin anti-armor system or an NLAW is FAR more valuable than a Russian T-55 and it's not even close. Considering the Ukrainians have millions of potential soldiers and thousands of modern anti-atmor systems as their disposal, a T-55 MBT is almost useless in modern combat. Hell, the 25mm gun on a Bradley or cannon on a CV90 will cut through armor of T-55 (or even a T-62) like butter. All those ancient society tanks are is mobile coffins, which will be followed closely by Russia's mobile crematoriums...

It is exactly because combat is not favorable anymore for modern tanks that the T-55 suddenly looks useful again. It took the Russians months and a lot of money to produce the latest T-72B3, 80BVM, 90M only to lose it in a mere days/weeks by some freak explosions as a result of mines and hatch dropped grenade, the same applies to the leopard 2A6. For the Russians which is now defending with multiple defensive lines yet to be penetrated, anything that shoots counts. From truck based 57mm gun, MT-LB based100mm anti tank gun etc. And from the looks of it they have lots of it.

 

[Gary]

Such conclusion comes from lack of understanding about how they are being deployed.


"THE RUSSIAN USE of armour has evolved significantly during the conflict... ...tanks are used as highly accurate fire support assets able to stand off at 2 km and utilise their enhanced optics to identify and knock out firing positions. It is important to note that while the introduction of older tanks such as the T62 and T55 to the field has been mocked online, these vehicles are largely being used in the role of the fire support function offered by BMPs and other infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs). They represent an increase in range, protection and kinetic effect over these IFVs, and therefore pose a serious battlefield threat when there are a limited number of anti-tank guided weapons able to reach them at their stand-off range."

This is exactly why its not wise looking down on the T-55s in that particular battlefield, turns out modern tank-tank combat are rare, and whatever design and engineering that tank designer put their effort to design top notch tanks like the M1, Leo2, T-90M are trashed by things as simple as mines and grenades.

Ukrainian and Russian infantry will still die when hit either by 2A26M 125mm guns or by 100mm D-10 guns and specs that used to be so cool such as gun pressure chambers, APFSDS penetration stats, shoot on the move or RHA thickness is becoming less and less relevant. Anything that shoots counts.

I wonder if the Russians are planning to return to tank destroyer concept in the future to cut cost and cut production time. maybe a 21st century version of this.

 

[Relic]

Canada had announced that it will send another $410 million usd to Ukraine. The funding is for...

- Expansion of training for Ukrainian troops in Europe.
- An Officer exchange program to be hosted this summer in Canada.
- Drones and drone technology.
- Macro financial aid.

 

[Relic]

It is exactly because combat is not favorable anymore for modern tanks that the T-55 suddenly looks useful again. It took the Russians months and a lot of money to produce the latest T-72B3, 80BVM, 90M only to lose it in a mere days/weeks by some freak explosions as a result of mines and hatch dropped grenade, the same applies to the leopard 2A6. For the Russians which is now defending with multiple defensive lines yet to be penetrated, anything that shoots counts. From truck based 57mm gun, MT-LB based100mm anti tank gun etc. And from the looks of it they have lots of it.

They're just artillery food. Russia will bunker them in and try to use them as short range turrets, with low accuracy. Ukraine will hunt them from a distance using drone corrected artillery fire, cluster munitions, and GMLRS. I suspect their effectiveness will be extremely minimal and as a result, will contribute to the already poor morale among Russian soldiers. Being asked to use 60+ year old technology to defend positions, while GMLRS, JDAMs and cluster munitions are being dropped on your head, is a shitty reality.

In their fire support role, they'll serve as highly inaccurate and lowly armoured targets, ripe for the Ukrainians to shred with any number of man portable anti-armor systems, TOW missiles, etc.

 

[Relic]

This is exactly why its not wise looking down on the T-55s in that particular battlefield, turns out modern tank-tank combat are rare, and whatever design and engineering that tank designer put their effort to design top notch tanks like the M1, Leo2, T-90M are trashed by things as simple as mines and grenades.

Ukrainian and Russian infantry will still die when hit either by 2A26M 125mm guns or by 100mm D-10 guns and specs that used to be so cool such as gun pressure chambers, APFSDS penetration stats, shoot on the move or RHA thickness is becoming less and less relevant. Anything that shoots counts.

I wonder if the Russians are planning to return to tank destroyer concept in the future to cut cost and cut production time. maybe a 21st century version of this.

Until the Russians have an effective answer for Ukrainian counter battery fire, and can match the combination of drone corrected, GPS guided munitions and GMLRS raining death down on Russia's outmatched / outranged artillery, it's going to remain a really bad problem for Russian troops.

Russia has been losing battalion sized elements of their best artillery, every day for the last couple months. We're starting to see it really hurt them in places like Klishchiivka, where the Ukrainians are crushing them with counter battery fire and quickly taking Bakhmut into a pocket by out ranging them an advancing quickly.

 

[Umigami]

turns out modern tank-tank combat are rare, and whatever design and engineering that tank designer put their effort to design top notch tanks like the M1, Leo2, T-90M are trashed by things as simple as mines and grenades.

The impression is all those advance tanks will just got destroyed when show up on battlefield.

Yeah, We got that impression after watched all those videos. But we don't know how many pill boxes, building, infantry, or other tanks being killed or destroyed by them before being destroyed themselves, right?

 

[Gary]

In their fire support role, they'll serve as highly inaccurate and lowly armoured targets, ripe for the Ukrainians to shred with any number of man portable anti-armor systems, TOW missiles, etc.

Does they have to, to begin with ? Minefields, trenches, barbed wire, bunkers, dragon's teeth etc are there for the purpose to either slow and attrit the enemy or (most of the time) channel assault force into the kill zone, where artillery saturation finished the job.

This is a yield of a 105mm gun on impact with that of a standard football field. Do you really think they NEED to be JDAM like accurate ? If they're not killed, they're wounded, and if not wounded they got concussions. A 100mm or 115mm round fired from the T-55 or T-62 will achieve similar if not more result especially that most of their ammo are either APCBC or HE

They could use berms to increase the angle of the barrel, effectively shielding them in behind , far from ATGM teams.

ATGMs aren't magic answer either for this problem, you should hear this opera8r here talking just how dangerous it is to actually move close and hit tanks with ATGMs. Watch from 2:26

The impression is all those advance tanks will just got destroyed when show up on battlefield.

Yeah, We got that impression after watched all those videos. But we don't know how many pill boxes, building, infantry, or other tanks being killed or destroyed by them before being destroyed themselves, right?

Not all of them, but very little difference if you're advancing in a Leo2 or T-72 against a Russian line. You will at some point stopped by mines and the dismounted infantry will have to battle it while getting shot by everything that shoots, even if its old.

And in this case Russia still has a lot of things that can shoot. 2000 equipment from just mercenary group that's a lot. And those defensive lines are not breached yet.

 

[Ecderha]

This is one of Ukraine camps for russian prisoners of WAR

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679263324133834753

 

[Relic]

Does they have to, to begin with ? Minefields, trenches, barbed wire, bunkers, dragon's teeth etc are there for the purpose to either slow and attrit the enemy or (most of the time) channel assault force into the kill zone, where artillery saturation finished the job.

This is a yield of a 105mm gun on impact with that of a standard football field. Do you really think they NEED to be JDAM like accurate ? If they're not killed, they're wounded, and if not wounded they got concussions. A 100mm or 115mm round fired from the T-55 or T-62 will achieve similar if not more result especially that most of their ammo are either APCBC or HE

They could use berms to increase the angle of the barrel, effectively shielding them in behind , far from ATGM teams.

ATGMs aren't magic answer either for this problem, you should hear this opera8r here talking just how dangerous it is to actually move close and hit tanks with ATGMs. Watch from 2:26

Not all of them, but very little difference if you're advancing in a Leo2 or T-72 against a Russian line. You will at some point stopped by mines and the dismounted infantry will have to battle it while getting shot by everything that shoots, even if its old.

And in this case Russia still has a lot of things that can shoot. 2000 equipment from just mercenary group that's a lot. And those defensive lines are not breached yet.

I think that you are under the impression that Ukraine is going to waste their manpower like Russia did in the Bakhmut area, in WW1 / WW2 style attempts to penetrate the Russian lines by throwing waves of infantry into the teeth of prepared Russian defenses. That's not the tactic they're going to use. Right now they are advancing slowly and methodically by smashing Russia's artillery, that is out ranged, outgunned and has poor counter battery support. What will happen is what we've seen previously. Ukraine will clean up all the Russian artillery in a given area, and strike their ammunition depots using GMLRS, to starve the remaining guns, then they will turn their conventional artillery onto fixed Russian defensive positions. Only when the Russians are pinned down by artillery fire that is beyond their capability to respond to, will Ukraine advance with mechanized forces. As we've seen, when they do advance, they don't do so in big convoys that can be easily targeted. They advance with platoon and company sized elements and properly assess the Russian response before advancing further. That makes ancient systems like T-55 relatively useless because it's rarely going to have any targets inside its range before it's targeted by Ukrainian precision artillery and drone strikes. Speaking of drones, if we thought T-72s and T-80s cooked off easily because of the ammunition being stored in their turret, Ukraine has plenty of drone dropped munitions / kamikaze drones that will make quick work not only of a T-55's minimal armor, but there will be extremely low levels of crew survivability as well. Trained crews will become even more imporant than the tanks themselves and Russia will lose them in droves.

 

[Relic]

For those interested in what The United States' capacity is to continue supplying Ukraine with GMLRS for HIMARS, Lockheed Martin has upped the production line to 10,000 rockets per year and is exploring avenues to further up production to 14,000 rockets per year. Of course, not all of the rounds can be sent to Ukraine, as the USA looks to backfill their own inventory, while supplying GMLRS to new customers as well, but it's reasonable to assume that 50% of the production over the course of the war will make its way into Ukrainian hands. Let's call it 5000-7000 GMLRS per year moving forward, which equates to 416-583 GMLRS per month. 416 rockets (on the low end) might not seem like many, but given their range, destructive power and devestating (proven) accuracy, we're talking about hundreds of of high value Russian targets that can be eliminated each month. That's going to be a massive attention issue for Russia.

At $168,000 per rocket, the USA can produce 10,000 GMLRS for an extremely affordable price tag of $1.68 Billion per year. Peanuts in the grand scheme of things.

Lockheed Martin Wins $4.8B GMLRS US Army Contract

Lockheed Martin has received a $4.8 billion contract from the US Army to manufacture two Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System configurations.

www.thedefensepost.com

 

[Gary]

I think that you are under the impression that Ukraine is going to waste their manpower like Russia did in the Bakhmut area, in WW1 / WW2 style attempts to penetrate the Russian lines by throwing waves of infantry into the teeth of prepared Russian defenses. That's not the tactic they're going to use. Right now they are advancing slowly and methodically by smashing Russia's artillery, that is out ranged, outgunned and has poor counter battery support. What will happen is what we've seen previously. Ukraine will clean up all the Russian artillery in a given area, and strike their ammunition depots using GMLRS, to starve the remaining guns, then they will turn their conventional artillery onto fixed Russian defensive positions. Only when the Russians are pinned down by artillery fire that is behind their capability to respond to, will Ukraine advance with mechanized forces. As we've seen, when they do advance, they don't do so in big convoys that can be easily targeted. They advance with platoon and company sized elements and properly assess the Russian response before advancing further. That makes ancient systems like T-55 relatively useless because it's rarely going to have any targets inside its range before it's targeted by Ukrainian precision artillery and drone strikes. Speaking of drones, if we thought T-72s and T-80s cooked off easily because of the ammunition being stored in their turret, Ukraine has plenty of drone dropped munitions / kamikaze drones that will make quick work not only of a T-55's minimal armor, but there will be extremely low levels of crew survivability as well. Trained crews will become even more imporant than the tanks themselves and Russia will lose them in droves.

And I think you're under the impressions that Ukraine has all the time and munitions in the world when its not. That speed of advance and you'll not reach Azov sea before Winter sets in. You also need to note that counter battery goes both ways, you have GMLRS, Russia has Lancet (which btw is proven very effective) and this tit for tat will continue for as long it takes, Its impossible for Ukraine to wipe clean Russian artillery, not even the Coalition during Desert Storm manage such let alone when you have no air superiority, I think Bakhmut gives people a general picture that Russian artillery is here to stay despite getting blown all over the place.

Just a reminder that Ukraine is still very far away from the first objective like Tokmak, Polohy, Staromlynivka etc, they're struggling to advance and progress are measured in mere meters, in front of them are towns turned fortress which from the look of it will take months to capture. Urban warfare are unforgiving for any attackers.

If Ukraine fails to keep up until winter, Russia wins and those T-55s, truck mounted S-60 etc does their job done.

 

[bisbis]

Wallace'dan Zelenski'ye silah tepkisi: 'Amazon değiliz'

Birleşik Krallık Savunma Bakanı Ben Wallace, Kiev'e sert bir çıkışta bulunarak, 'Ukrayna'ya silah sevkiyatı yapan Amazon değiliz." ifadelerini kullandı.

www.savunmasanayist.com

**
Minister Wallace gave a briefing on the margins of the NATO Summit held in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, and answered journalists' questions. Wallace was reminded that Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelenskiy interpreted NATO's failure to give Kiev a timetable for joining the alliance as "absurd", and the question was asked whether not giving Zelenskiy a time frame for NATO membership would demoralize his troops at the front.


Defense Minister Wallace said that he did not believe that this was the case, and that Ukraine always wanted more, even after purchasing the last batch of weapons.

“People want to see gratitude, whether we want it or not. Sometimes you persuade countries to give up their weapons stocks. Yes, this is a noble war, and we see it as 'a war not only for yourself, but for the freedom of all of us'. However, sometimes you have to convince lawmakers in America, skeptical politicians in other countries, that it's worth it and they're getting something in return. Like it or not, that's the truth of the matter."

“We are not Amazon”

Secretary Wallace, sometimes from American politicians, said, "We gave 83 billion dollars or whatever, and you know, we are not 'Amazon'." He said they heard grunts.**

wallace, yes you are not amazon network seller! You westerners are bloodsucking leeches. If you don't have an interest, you're not doing any favors.

 

[Relic]

And I think you're under the impressions that Ukraine has all the time and munitions in the world when its not. That speed of advance and you'll not reach Azov sea before Winter sets in. You also need to note that counter battery goes both ways, you have GMLRS, Russia has Lancet (which btw is proven very effective) and this tit for tat will continue for as long it takes, Its impossible for Ukraine to wipe clean Russian artillery, not even the Coalition during Desert Storm manage such let alone when you have no air superiority, I think Bakhmut gives people a general picture that Russian artillery is here to stay despite getting blown all over the place.

Just a reminder that Ukraine is still very far away from the first objective like Tokmak, Polohy, Staromlynivka etc, they're struggling to advance and progress are measured in mere meters, in front of them are towns turned fortress which from the look of it will take months to capture. Urban warfare are unforgiving for any attackers.

If Ukraine fails to keep up until winter, Russia wins and those T-55s, truck mounted S-60 etc does their job done.

A couple points.

1). Ukraine doesn't need to destroy ALL Russian artillery. It has to destroy Russia's most capable, most accurate artillery, namely a high number of its rocket artillery and and high end self-propelled artillery. Russia can field all of the D-20 and D-30 guns it wants. All they do is waste ammunition that Russia is running through at a much faster pace than they can produce. They're highly inaccurate systems, only effective for mass area bombardment. At least 50% of Russia's artillery has ZERO precision strike capability, while all of the modern systems Ukraine is receiving do, especially when paired with superior Western counter battery radar. You're correct in stating that Ukraine won't destroy all of Russia's artillery. But that's not the goal. They have to destroy the long range, accurate stuff, because when they do, Russia's shorter ranged towed systems become virtually useless vs GPS guided shells and Ukrainian counter battery fire.

2). Lancet drones have been exceptionally effective. There is no doubt about that. However, the effect is overstated in that Ukraine is still wiping out entire battalions of Russian artillery, while people make a big deal over a single M109, CAESAR or M777 being destroyed every couple days by a Lancet. As if the West doesn't have hundreds more of the same artillery systems to send Ukraine. Russian Generals and military bloggers have been complaining non-stop for the last couple months that Ukraine is massacreing Russian artillery, with little relative response from Russia.

3). Not a single Lancet drone has been able to find / target a HIMARS or an M270. Ukraine is able to strike Russian artillery, command posts and ammunition depots with impunity, from far outside of Lancet range. The Lancet drone is excellent, but it's not magic. GMLRS has been wayyyyyy more effective in this war than Lancets have.

4). Ukraine is slowly getting Kamikaze drones that perform similarly to Lancet. As the West ramps up production of those drones and that capability evens out, that's even worse for Russia. Why? Because if you can you use a cheap kamikaze drone to destroy Russian armor, you can save GMLRS to continue to strike more valuable Russian targets with impunity.

5. Ukraine is still largely operating with an antiquated Air Force. Eventually, Western fighter jets will arrive in theater and while they're definitely not a silver bullet, Russia is not going to risk their own air force getting close enough to combat Ukraine's, due to the fear of improving Ukrainian air defense coverage. That means as Ukraine clears out Russia's shorter range SAM systems from the front, weapons such as JDAMS, launched from a platform they were intended to be launched from, are going to play a much larger role at the front. Right now Ukraine's Air Force is hyper limited in what it can do to help shape the front. That will slowly change. As Russia has demonstrated, their only interest is launching cruise missiles using bombers, from far outside of Ukrainian air space. They have ZERO interest in trying to get their air force involved inside of Ukraine in any meaningful way.