Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DarkWangster t1_j6gjmdn wrote

The problem is that Ukraine needs A LOT more to even hold their ground. Russia is overwhelming them in the East right now and a few dozen/hundred tanks aren't going to make a big enough difference. And we can't wave a magic wand and get Ukraine everything that it would need. The situation is probably going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

43

Ceratisa t1_j6gm1bs wrote

Russia isn't overwhelming them. Russia has only recently had its first victory in months, yet it was over a small non-vital town. The battle took months and they have virtually destroyed the entire town to do it. This was at the cost of thousands and thousands of Russiana.

80

sus_menik t1_j6hbgb0 wrote

Have you checked the map recently? It is pretty clear that Russians regained overall initiative, even at places like Kremiina there were some advances.

34

muncherofhay t1_j6juvin wrote

Yeah I agree right now the Ukranians are on the back foot. It looks like thousands of Russians dying to hundreds of Ukranians, but the Russians are still advancing. They don't seem to mind the cost.

1

bombmk t1_j6k1xhx wrote

1: Initiative is not "overwhelming"

2: Not known if remaining defensive is a conscious strategic choice while they are waiting for spring and the new hardware it brings. That is of course highly speculative.

But it does seem like positive movements map wise has been going the Russian way lately. No argument there. The less obvious part is whether that has come at a sustainable cost.

0

AmberHeards t1_j6gt5m9 wrote

And quite possibly even more Ukrainians unfortunately (if you're referring to Soledar). There were a bunch of videos of Ukrainian soldiers critical of their leadership for not pulling out soon enough, some featuring hordes of Ukrainian corpses. Check out the UkraineRussiaReport subreddit if you want, NSFL-warning though.

27

SuperRedShrimplet t1_j6h01pv wrote

Ukraine were advised by the US to strategically withdraw as it wasn't worth defending but obviously there is a morale element here to which I think was something Ukraine didn't want to lose, so I can kind of understand why they also defended it as hard as they did.

20

ssepaulette t1_j6h1qyo wrote

Soledar has pretty big strategic implications though. The salt mine allows men, equipment and ammo to be housed and transported safely.

Provides an important springboard to cut supply routes to Bakhmut and Siversk, and the link between the 2 frontline cities. As we are speaking, Bakhmut is dangerously close to being encircled and if the Russians tighten the noose around the city successfully, a significant force of Ukraine’s best troops could get cut off and potentially destroyed, leaving a big hole in the front.

If that happens, Ukraine can forget about retaking any territories ever again, even with the western tanks. People need to understand the harsh reality.

23

Midnight2012 t1_j6hohcn wrote

They arnt using the mines like underground roads. I think you have the wrong idea.

8

MrHazard1 t1_j6hjr8x wrote

So if they close off the mine and fortify their flanks, they can hold out and kill a lot more russian meat being thrown at them until they need to retreat those good troops a bit further back, where they can continue the fight.

I don't think russia will be able to maintain the pressure for long enough, until they need to start drawing children and the pressure in kremlin starts to rise. Play the long game and make them pay heavily for every cm they get. And when they have it, come back with better NATO equipment and trained soldiers

−4

bfhurricane t1_j6hq4my wrote

The long game is more beneficial to Russia than Ukraine. They have more men and material to draw out a long conflict. That’s why Ukraine wants to (and must) win this decisively soon.

0

Lauris024 t1_j6hc84d wrote

"so you managed to kill 20000 of your own men to capture a destroyed city that had a population of 10000?"

1

sutrauboju t1_j6hjmgo wrote

Why do you think the population matters here? In war armies fight over strategic points on the map. Actual town population is irrelevant.

15

Lauris024 t1_j6hk9yh wrote

It's absolutely nuts for a modern army to lose 20000 men over some point which isn't even THAT important. Still don't see the problem? Let me put it more clearly - US lost around 7000 men in both, Iraq and Afghanistan war, combined, that lasted many, many years

1

sutrauboju t1_j6hko9b wrote

US has a better army than Russia is your take on this? Amazing insight tbh.

8

[deleted] t1_j6hkwqh wrote

[deleted]

−2

[deleted] t1_j6hlif3 wrote

[deleted]

2

[deleted] t1_j6hmcay wrote

[deleted]

−2

[deleted] t1_j6hncnu wrote

[deleted]

4

[deleted] t1_j6hpx95 wrote

[deleted]

1

[deleted] t1_j6hr24t wrote

[deleted]

1

bombmk t1_j6k4s0i wrote

Question of what makes something "THAT important" is a little complex though.

What from the outside can be seen as a completely Pyrrhic victory can still work on the inside for someone like Putin that will be under increasing pressure to show success. To just give one example.

It could also boost morale all over the front for Russians troops - the effectively makes the cost worthwhile. (I doubt that, but for the sake of example)

And the Russian army does not operate under the same societal sensitivity to losses that the US does. It is still nuts - but that does not mean it cannot work for an orchish horde.

1

bombmk t1_j6k08qj wrote

The one thing that has me worried atm is that has been a while since we have had a significant Ukrainian positive movement on the fronts. As far as I can tell.
Now, that might VERY well be due to deliberate strategic decisions of just hanging on the ropes over winter and let the Russians punch themselves tired.
Still has me somewhat worried that the Russians with their more concentrated strategy of pushing flesh at the dam until it breaks might have found a way to prevent the Ukrainians from overloading the Ukrainian ability to cover the front AND maintain offensive capabilities.

At which point it becomes speculation about the sustainability of the Russian strategy.

But I sincerely hope that it is just me being overly worried. And that they new NATO hardware arrives sooner rather than later.

1

Rexia2022 t1_j6glssl wrote

You'd be amazed at the difference technological advantage makes. 10 to 1 numbers don't mean anything when nothing you have can damage the Challenger 2 coming right at you.

9

flopsyplum t1_j6gsjzo wrote

>10 to 1 numbers don't mean anything when nothing you have can damage the Challenger 2 coming right at you.

Anti-tank mines?

7

Rexia2022 t1_j6gunui wrote

At best that takes the treads off, but we're talking about blunting a Russian offensive and you don't mine ahead of your offensive push for obvious reasons.

6

alucardu t1_j6hhx36 wrote

> and you don't mine ahead of your offensive push for obvious reasons.

Next week. Russians angry at Ukrain because the ran into their own "advancing" mines...

6

Nerevarine91 t1_j6gtgqj wrote

Those are a risk, but I do think the original commenter’s point has some merit if you consider the value of modern optics systems vs the old ones used on most Russian tanks. In that scenario, it really is a 10 to 1 increase in value

5

Baneken t1_j6h5s4u wrote

Abrams in desert storm... It was a complete slaughter for the 'modernized' Iraqi T-72s, they literally couldn't even see their enemy before they were already hit.

And that was 30 years ago, proposed Challengers, Leos and Leclercs are much more modern than those American Abrams were back then and Abrams itself has had a few iterations to it since then.

The Soviet-era tanks Russia is still using won't have a chance and I'm not sure how many are T-90s or newer from the ones they actually field.

10

Nerevarine91 t1_j6hbjgn wrote

From what I’ve heard, target acquisition and optics are by far the single most important difference between truly modern tanks and everything else, when it comes to battlefield performance

4

ZealousidealWash5800 t1_j6hbltn wrote

T72 export model with hand crank turrets... completely lobotomised compared to the domestic model with night sights. Do a bit of reading on desert storm: it was wardens air war 'operation instant thunder' that lead to such a curbstomp. Many military commentators view this as being a rare perfect storm unlikely to reoccur any time soon.

3

Baneken t1_j6hhb3c wrote

And you expect the current Russian ones to be that much better when a single good hit from Javelin will literally toss the whole tank into air? Russia had matching modern tanks but they're few or nothing but vaporware & concepts. What they've been using are outdated holdovers from the '90s with some mandatory upgrades.

People have already been whining how some odd 200 tanks ain't doing much... When it's not about the numbers but how you deploy them in the field -200 tanks in one sector supported by infantry & artillery is a lot, peppered throughout the country -not so much.

0

ZealousidealWash5800 t1_j6hj1ul wrote

You're not doing much to argue against that sending 31 abrams isn't going to result in another desert storm...

Javelin would also total an abrams, what's your point?

The design age argument doesn't hold water either: Abrams is 1970s, Leopard is 1980s and Challenger II is 90s. I'm not sure what you're getting at there unless you're arguing all they are using are literally produced in the 90s? As if they've done nothing but produce ladas and nothing else for 30 years.

Also lmao comparing t90m and t72b3 to hand crank tanks? Pull the other one it's got bells on it.

1

ZealousidealWash5800 t1_j6hbe2s wrote

T90m had better fcs than many western contemporary tanks, western tanks have many advantages but this ain't it chief.

0

Nerevarine91 t1_j6hbmm8 wrote

T-90M has a modern optics package, but that’s not exactly the tank being used the majority of Russian units. It’s also worth noting that those were built with imported components, and there are reports from inside Russia that even relatively modern tanks are now being sent to the front with older packages.

5

ZealousidealWash5800 t1_j6hbud9 wrote

As the conflict goes on we will see a decline in stopgap tanks like meme36 and an increase in refurb or newbuild t90m with increased domestic economic mobilisations. I guarantee there are currently more t90m on the front than there are competitior Western tanks.

−1

Nerevarine91 t1_j6hc6vv wrote

I mean, there currently aren’t many Western tanks on the ground in Ukraine at all, so that bet seems extremely safe. However, I would be very interested in seeing the exact percentages, because my understanding is that the vast majority of Russian tanks in Ukraine are variants of the T-72, with no indication of that really changing.

3

ZealousidealWash5800 t1_j6hcfax wrote

Time will tell, maybe you are right and they consider increased numbers of the older model instead of lesser numbers of the newer. Most tanks this conflict will have been taken out by rpg atgm or artillery as opposed to pop culture tank duels, so I doubt we will see many resolutions to the dick measurig on here with abrams / challenger / leopard vs T-xyz.

0

Nerevarine91 t1_j6hcjq6 wrote

Who knows? I can only say what I’ve heard is going on now. As for what they’ll do in the future, I have no idea

2

Turbofox23 t1_j6hbk3x wrote

Maybe in some russian textbook, not in reality however

1

lacb1 t1_j6hfos2 wrote

Remember that state of the art Russian drone the Ukrainians captured that had a fucking Cannon DSLR camera in it? Yeah. They don't have "world beating" anything. It was smart for NATO to take them seriously right up until we had proof that they're full of shit. But now we have literally tonnes of proof, and it's all being dismantled and studied. Whatever surprises the Russians may have had for NATO aren't really surprises anymore.

2

Turbofox23 t1_j6hfv17 wrote

Plus, they don't produce anything apart from AKs and artillery shells, every piece of any advanced tech (chips, IR-matrix, monitors, optics) is either Chinese, US-made, or bought from European companies.

Edit: or scrapped from stolen washing machines

3

sus_menik t1_j6hbp6l wrote

I'm still not sure how that will be different in terms of vulnerability to artillery and MLRS. They are just as susceptible to being hit.

0

Nerevarine91 t1_j6hbsxc wrote

I understand that, but it’s on a tank-to-tank comparison that the difference stands out

−2

sus_menik t1_j6hc3ow wrote

My point is that a lot of the advantages of the equipment can be irrelevant considering other shortcomings in the overall capability.

3

Nerevarine91 t1_j6hc9nh wrote

If they both have the same vulnerability to artillery, then I don’t see why that’s really a shortcoming. Like in an equation, the same variable on either side balances out.

−1

HorrificAnalInjuries t1_j6gm59k wrote

This was part of what the Germans were hoping for when they pressed the Battle of the Bulge. There are Kingtigers that to date have little pot marks on their hulls and turrets where some poor, surprised GI opened up on the beast with their .50 cal.

6

flopsyplum t1_j6gsfvz wrote

>Russia is overwhelming them in the East right now

I don't see any Russian flags being hoisted anywhere except Soledar.

7

sus_menik t1_j6hbjvk wrote

There were multiple towns captured since then. They have advanced quite a bit past Soledar already, but even more so in the south of Bakhmut.

12

HurryPast386 t1_j6hbaf5 wrote

Looking at the current territory map, I'm not seeing any significant gains by Russia currently that make up for the months of losses they've endured.

Also, lol, you're nuts if you think a few hundred modern tanks (combined with modern artillery and missiles) aren't just going to completely decimate any land-based offensive by the Russian army. Russia has a serious problem. Either they win it now or they'll never take any territory again once the modern tanks are in play. They know this too.

It's just all over once Ukraine gets F-16's too, because they'll have something Russia never had in enough numbers: Precision munitions.

6