|
Just reactivate the Flying Tigers as a ground force & be done with it! :ok:
|
Originally Posted by _Agrajag_
(Post 11370782)
There are end user agreements in place. These stop arms designed by one country from being sent to another country without agreement. Germany owns the end user agreements made with all states that have Leopards. None of them can send Leopards to Ukraine without Germany's consent.
Same goes for almost everything else. If the UK had, for example, Abrams M1s then we couldn't send them to Ukraine without agreement from the US. |
Originally Posted by B Fraser
(Post 11370650)
The point of NATO is that the member states do the right thing when called upon. This does not apply in the current situation but would Germany stand up if Estonia were to be invaded ? It doesn't look like they would. Germany's membership should be on the agenda at the next meeting. I'm not advocating kicking them out as having a useless tw@t inside the tent is slightly better than having a useless tw@t outside the tent however they need to be put under the spotlight.
What's next, "we won't count our tanks until the Americans count theirs" ? I heard an excuse on Radio 4 that this is in part due to 39-45. That's almost beyond living memory FFS. Honestly this is nonsense that I can't understand. If I were in any kind of responsibility in the Defence Ministry for major armaments, I would have a daily running total om my PC of operational tanks, those in maintenance, storage , for sale or being scrapped. and obviously be able to produce this within a very short time if required. |
Originally Posted by peter we
(Post 11370809)
Welll they can send them without consent, Germany cannot physically stop them. Obviously maintenance will become an issue.
|
Originally Posted by peter we
(Post 11370809)
Welll they can send them without consent, Germany cannot physically stop them. Obviously maintenance will become an issue.
That's one problem. Germany could choose to stop the supply of all spares. Could also impose other sanctions on any country that chose to do this I believe. Overall it would be far better if Germany would just stop farting about and agree to send them, |
End User certificates play an important role in preventing arms ending up with hostile groups. To simply ignore them, however well intentioned, would be illegal and set a very bad precedent. The way forward must be to put overwhelming political pressure on Germany to get off the fence.
|
Originally Posted by Video Mixdown
(Post 11370841)
The way forward must be to put overwhelming political pressure on
|
There was a suggestion last year by Rheinmetal to send older Leopard 1 to Ukraine. Issue at the time was reportedly the reluctance amongst NATO members to supply the 105mm ammo from stocks. Seems it may be easier now to get that ammo released? There is less advanced tech on the huge stocks of Leo 1 and ex USA M60 tanks. Send these until the Leo 2/Abrams politics is resolved.
|
Originally Posted by B Fraser
(Post 11370650)
The point of NATO is that the member states do the right thing when called upon. This does not apply in the current situation but would Germany stand up if Estonia were to be invaded ? It doesn't look like they would. Germany's membership should be on the agenda at the next meeting. I'm not advocating kicking them out as having a useless tw@t inside the tent is slightly better than having a useless tw@t outside the tent however they need to be put under the spotlight.
What's next, "we won't count our tanks until the Americans count theirs" ? I heard an excuse on Radio 4 that this is in part due to 39-45. That's almost beyond living memory FFS. |
Originally Posted by Kent Based
(Post 11370852)
There was a suggestion last year by Rheinmetal to send older Leopard 1 to Ukraine. Issue at the time was reportedly the reluctance amongst NATO members to supply the 105mm ammo from stocks. Seems it may be easier now to get that ammo released? There is less advanced tech on the huge stocks of Leo 1 and ex USA M60 tanks. Send these until the Leo 2/Abrams politics is resolved.
Originally Posted by Timmy Tomkins
(Post 11370856)
It's reassuring to see that thGermany is competing with the UK for lies.
|
Originally Posted by Timmy Tomkins
(Post 11370856)
It's reassuring to see that thGermany is competing with the UK for lies. Pistorious said "Germany is not blocking the supply of tanks" er.......who is it then?
It seems that the preferred breakfast dish at that meeting was “Waffles”. Stacks and stacks of them smothered in a lot of sweet syrupy talk. Not in any way reminiscent of Churchill’s “ACTION THIS DAY” approach to a serious problem. Rant over. |
Originally Posted by Kent Based
(Post 11370852)
There was a suggestion last year by Rheinmetal to send older Leopard 1 to Ukraine. Issue at the time was reportedly the reluctance amongst NATO members to supply the 105mm ammo from stocks. Seems it may be easier now to get that ammo released? There is less advanced tech on the huge stocks of Leo 1 and ex USA M60 tanks. Send these until the Leo 2/Abrams politics is resolved.
As mentioned earlier, the M60’s were apparently disposed off. |
Send them all of our Challenger 2s. Their purpose was ultimately to kill Russian armour in the European theatre. Let them do what comes naturally.
Or does the store-man’s mantra of “you can’t have someone else might want it” hold sway. |
Originally Posted by GlobalNav
(Post 11370605)
Probably realistic advice, but why the h*ll can't we give UKR the means to erase that threat?
Interesting that the original desire by many of us for more material support to the UKR is finally getting belated traction. Timing is such an important factor. if we had given them the ability to strike deep behind the front on Ukrainian territory the talk of withdrawing would be a moot point. In a way it makes me feel like Germany and partially the West are hanging them out to dry at the moment of potential victory. … |
Originally Posted by Arty Fufkin
(Post 11370892)
Send them all of our Challenger 2s. Their purpose was ultimately to kill Russian armour in the European theatre. Let them do what comes naturally.
Or does the store-man’s mantra of “you can’t have someone else might want it” hold sway. |
Originally Posted by Timmy Tomkins
(Post 11370856)
It's reassuring to see that thGermany is competing with the UK for lies. Pistorious said "Germany is not blocking the supply of tanks" er.......who is it then?
|
Nothing initially. A fairly sensible gamble unless you can really foresee the uk going it alone against a near peer adversary within the 10 years it would take to buy an off the shelf replacement. Poland is purchasing/ license building 1000 Korean K2s.
Why hold on to 150 Challenger 2s to convert them to Challenger 3, to maybe deter Russian armour in 5 years time when those same Challenger 2s can wrap up said Russian armour this spring? It looks nice having a park full of tanks, but if you aren’t prepared to use them when needed incase you loose them, when will you ever use them? |
Originally Posted by Video Mixdown
(Post 11370841)
End User certificates play an important role in preventing arms ending up with hostile groups. To simply ignore them, however well intentioned, would be illegal and set a very bad precedent. The way forward must be to put overwhelming political pressure on Germany to get off the fence.
https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/str...anzer-101.html Translation: The pressure on Chancellor Scholz in the tank debate is growing: In the tagesschau24 interview, FDP defense politician Strack-Zimmermann criticized procrastination. "If you want to deliver, you should deliver." SPD faction leader Mützenich campaigned for reason instead of "sniffing". In the discussion about the delivery of "Leopard 2" lancers, the pressure on Chancellor Olaf Scholz and the newly sworn Minister of Defense Boris Pistorius is increasing - also from the own ranks of the traffic light coalition. The government acts despondently, said the FDP defense politician Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann in the tagesschau24 interview - and thus renewed her criticism. The Western world is waiting for Germany to make decisions, for Germany to lead. But the federal government is waiting for the pressure to increase and only then "do you get going," says the chairman of the Defense Committee. If you want to deliver, you should deliver, she said with regard to the requests of Poland, which wants to hand over "Leopard" tanks to Kiev, but are still waiting for German approval. 9 minutes "Who wants to deliver should deliver," Chairman of the Defense Committee, Strack-Zimmermann Tagesschau24 3:00 pm, 2/21/023 Strack-Zimmermann hopes for Pistorius Strack-Zimmermann hopes that the new Minister of Defense Boris Pistorius will "dissolve the shackles" and make the decision to lay the tank. If you do not want to deliver the "Leopard" tank, then you have to explain to the Allies and Ukraine why Germany rejects this instead of waiting "degenerately". "We have tanks, we should deliver them and should stand by Ukraine and not open another argumentative battlefield," stressed the FDP politician. Whoever subordinates to her, first the tanks would come and then the troops, argue deeply dubiously. Under international law, Germany can supply Ukraine with material and thus stand by Ukraine. 01/2023 Military aid to Ukraine Other weapons, but no "Leopard" tanks There is still no permission for "Leopard 2" deliveries. First, the German stocks are checked. Göring-Eckardt: Strengthen Ukraine militarily Bundestag Vice President Katrin Göring-Eckardt joined the criticism of Strack-Zimmermann. "I would have liked the German government to have cleared the way for the delivery of 'Leopard' ancers as early as this week," she told the newspapers of the Funke Mediengruppe. "These are urgently needed in Ukraine." Ukraine defends not only its own country, "but also our freedom," emphasized Göring-Eckardt. Lindner: Pistorius should examine further aid Federal Finance Minister Christian Lindner said more cautiously. He called on Defense Minister Pistorius to examine further German aid. "However, a new Minister of Defense is also a new opportunity for Germany to examine what we can still do to support Ukraine in its fight for peace and freedom," Lindner said. He did not show what concrete aid he meant. Commentary 01/2023 Ramstein Conference on Ukraine It's not just about main battle tanks At the conference in Ramstein, no decision was made on the delivery of "Leopard" lancers. Mützenich: Reason instead of "sniffing" SPD faction leader Rolf Mützenich, on the other hand, stood behind Chancellor Scholz - and criticized Strack-Zimmermann. "Mrs. Strack-Zimmermann and others talk to us into a military conflict," Mützenich told the dpa news agency. The same people who demanded going it alone with heavy main battle tanks today would scream for planes or troops tomorrow. "A policy in times of war in Europe is not made in the style of indignation rituals or with a breath of freshness, but with clarity and reason," says the SPD politician. Security policy is not limited to arms deliveries, emphasized the SPD faction leader. Close coordination with the military world power USA and the attempt to involve the rising regulatory power China is essential for a resilient end to the war in Ukraine. Scholz has lived up to both demands since the beginning of the Russian attack on Ukraine. 01/2023 Delivery of main battle tanks Pistorius wants to check "Leopard" stocks Germany "do not block a decision," said Defense Minister Pistorius in Ramstein. Pistorius wants to check stocks At the meeting of the Ukraine contact group at the US base Ramstein, no decision was made on Friday to deliver "Leopard" peds to Ukraine. The new Minister of Defense Pistorius initially ordered an examination of the stocks for a possible delivery to Ukraine. Previously, Poland and other EU and NATO states had agreed to provide the Ukrainian army with "Leopard" tanks from German production. For this, however, the federal government would have to give the green light. Kiev has long been calling for the delivery of Western battle tanks. 06/15/2021 . |
|
Us will agree to other countries providing F16, something I believe the Nederland has said they are willing to do.
More smoking in Russia |
Bravery comes in many forms…:sad:
If Scholz was on that truck he would empty Germany’s warehouse’s to stop this.. Russian propagandist realises too ate that being on the front line comes at a cost. |
So give them all our Challengers.
|
All, a little, or nothing?
Originally Posted by Arty Fufkin
(Post 11370892)
Send them all of our Challenger 2s. Their purpose was ultimately to kill Russian armour in the European theatre. Let them do what comes naturally.
Or does the store-man’s mantra of “you can’t have someone else might want it” hold sway.
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 11370896)
And you are going to replace the Challenger 2 with what? You do realise that the Challenger 3 is simply an updated version of our current Challenger 2 tanks, NOT new builds, or are you intending to leave the British Army weapons wise on par with the Vatican City guard?
As far as I can see, at the moment Russian forces are being held back in some places, or are making negative advances in others helped by Ukraine's armed forces. All of our Challenger 2s are at rest somewhere in UK and Europe not doing much. Piecemeal donations of MBTs merely mean that should the coming Russian spring offensive achieve the Russian aims then those piecemeal MBTs will have been defeated and, in some time-scale decided by Putins Kremlin, Russian forces will then look for the next missing piece of greater Russia which will inevitably be a NATO country, most likely Estonia. Aha sez yourself, Article 5 kicks in. BUT will it? Will Hungary agree, will Germany pause things because of all the contracts their construction industry have in And now, of course, we get to use our super duper MBTs, albeit far far too late, or watch the growth of new Russia. I am minded of the old dilemma faced by the village elders where the road in the mountain leading to village had a bad bend which caused people to crash and fall down the mountain. Some in the village thought it best to keep an ambulance in the valley, others to build a fence on the mountain. Me? I’m all for the fence reinforced and guarded by 300 MBTs. But then, what do I know? I'm only an ex NCO, not one of the smart retired VSO's or, God forbid, a politician. |
Do we have VSOs among us?
And if so, are any smart? |
This is about far more than MBTs. They are a part of the capability that Ukraine needs. The emphasis needs to be on "a part". Wars are not won by MBTs alone. Wars are won by combined arms. This goes right back to Sun Tzu. It's nothing new. Focussing on one element (a small one at that) takes away from the need to look at the whole tactical picture.
Look at the type of warfare in the east of Ukraine. It is mostly not being fought on open ground, where fast and agile MBTs are most effective. It's being largely fought in urban areas. Warfare in urban areas is always a PITA. Most here will understand that. Some from first-hand experience. MBTs can play a useful role in that scenario, but that role is less significant than several others. I would argue that if there were two key capabilities to single out with respect to ground fighting (which is where wars are won or lost) then they are firstly a long range strike capability to reduce Russia's resupply capability by disrupting their logistic support. Secondly Ukraine needs equipment to support an agile urban warfare capability. My reasoning is this. During winter trench warfare is highly dependent on having a viable supply chain. Knock out re-supply for a few days and troops in trenches die, just from the cold and lack of food and fuel. The urban environment is less sensitive to this. They can rob and forage, take shelter in buildings and are a lot harder to dislodge than troops in trenches. Ukraine needs MBTs. But let's not get derailed into thinking they are the only thing they need. If Ukraine had the ability to knock out targets 150km or more from their strongly held positions they could seriously disrupt their attackers capability this winter. HIMARS is very effective but Ukraine needs something with a longer range. Pity the extended range GMLRS variants aren't in full production. Maybe there is something that can be quickly adapted to fit the F-16 and give a very accurate and reasonably long range stand-off capability (apologies if this exists - outside my area of expertise - I was but a humbles signals guy that went on to work as a contractor. There are big gaps in my knowledge and understanding). |
[QUOTE=ACW342;11370932]
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 11370896)
And you are going to replace the Challenger 2 with what?
Where is the threat that would require MBTs in Britain? |
[QUOTE=ACW342;11370932]
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 11370896)
And you are going to replace the Challenger 2 with what? You do realise that the Challenger 3 is simply an updated version of our current Challenger 2 tanks, NOT new builds, or are you intending to leave the British Army weapons wise on par with the Vatican City guard?[/QUOTE
Arty, Nutty, After some deep thought (painful at times) I thought that the idea was that As far as I can see, at the moment Russian forces are being held back in some places, or are making negative advances in others helped by Ukraines armed forces. All of our Challenger 2s are at rest somewhere in UK and Europe not doing much. Piecemeal donations of MBTs merely mean that should the coming Russian spring offensive achieve the Russian aims then those piecemeal MBTs will have been defeated and, in some timescale decided by Putins Kremlin, Russian forces will then look for the next missing piece of greater Russia which will inevitably be a Nato country, most likely Estonia. Aha sez yourself, Article 5 kicks in. BUT will it? Will Hungary agree, will Germany pause things because of all the contracts their construction industry have in And now, of course, we get to use our super duper MBTs, albeit far far too late, or watch the growth of new Russia. I am minded of the old dilemma faced by the village elders where the road in the mountain leading to village had a bad bend which caused people to crash and fall down the mountain. Some in the village thought it best to keep an ambulance in the valley, others to build a fence on the mountain. Me? I’m all for the fence reinforced and guarded by 300 MBTs. But then, what do I know? I'm only an ex NCO, not one of the smart retired VSO's or, God forbid, a politician. Of those 227 tanks 148 Challenger 2 are slated to be upgraded, how many are currently going through the conversion process I do not know, but they are expected circa 2027 ish with fully in service 2030. Plus we have tanks deployed under Article 5 to some of the NATO Countries, and of those 227 tanks, how many are actually usable is another question, often you hold war stocks that will need work to generate. I would have liked to see nearer thirty sent but those in the know will have looked at our capability to supply what and when. https://www.army-technology.com/feat...r-2-provision/ |
Originally Posted by Arty Fufkin
(Post 11370892)
Send them all of our Challenger 2s. Their purpose was ultimately to kill Russian armour in the European theatre. Let them do what comes naturally.
Or does the store-man’s mantra of “you can’t have someone else might want it” hold sway. |
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 11370952)
I understand that but a lot of the Challenger 2 are being converted, the U.K. has 227 in total, as opposed to 2300 Leopard 2 scattered about various countries and in storage. Of those 227 tanks 148 Challenger 2 are slated to be upgraded, how many are currently going through the conversion process I do not know, but they are expected circa 2027 ish with fully in service 2030. Plus we have tanks deployed under Article 5 to some of the NATO Countries, and of those 227 tanks, how many are actually usable is another question, often you hold war stocks that will need work to generate. I would have liked to see nearer thirty sent but those in the know will have looked at our capability to supply what and when. https://www.army-technology.com/feat...r-2-provision/ *** Often robbed of parts to keep the operational vehicles going because there were no spares available. |
And you are going to replace the Challenger 2 with what? |
I think any replacement new build needs to be home built, buying in has a quality all of its own, however, buying in means the demise of the UK’s tank building industry, the closing of factories and the dispersal of the design teams meaning you will be beholden to other countries for your Armaments from hence forth. Look what happened to the likes of the UK’s once world beating military aviation companies, killed off by imports.
|
Originally Posted by ACW342
(Post 11370932)
Arty, Nutty, After some deep thought (painful at times) I thought that the idea was that
|
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 11370979)
I think any replacement new build needs to be home built, buying in has a quality all of its own, however, buying in means the demise of the UK’s tank building industry, the closing of factories and the dispersal of the design teams meaning you will be beholden to other countries for your Armaments from hence forth. Look what happened to the likes of the UK’s once world beating military aviation companies, killed off by imports.
There is a great deal of merit in paying to retain a UK capability, The proviso is that it MUST be interoperable. The UK has a very nasty habit of producing unicorns, and then not having the funds to keep them operational and properly supported. We could do a lot worse than look at Sweden. They have around 15% of the population of the UK, yet manage to produce and support some very capable bits of kit. |
I think any replacement new build needs to be home built, buying in has a quality all of its own, however, buying in means the demise of the UK’s tank building industry, the closing of factories and the dispersal of the design teams |
Originally Posted by _Agrajag_
(Post 11370983)
There is a great deal of merit in paying to retain a UK capability, The proviso is that it MUST be interoperable. The UK has a very nasty habit of producing unicorns, and then not having the funds to keep them operational and properly supported.
We could do a lot worse than look at Sweden. They have around 15% of the population of the UK, yet manage to produce and support some very capable bits of kit. and quite a lot of it comes from companies owned by BAE Systems. Perhaps though, they bought the companies and then remained hands-off. I don't know how they manage companies they buy. |
It's a great shame that this tank issue is causing such division amongst allies when what is needed at this point is unity in confronting Putin's expansionism.
|
Looking at UK, we have a sad history of producing decent kit that nobody else buys, thus stuffing the unit cost through the roof. Yes, we need (?) a Defence industry, but my gut feeling is that go-it-alone days are long gone. Collaboration is the way ahead, surely? Stuff Challenger xx and buy in to a programme with Korea or [dare I say] Germany.
|
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 11370963)
It’s going to have a new Rheinmetall turret anyway, so it is being suggested we give the Challengers to Ukraine and order new Korean K2 hulls to go with the new turret.
Originally Posted by MPN11
(Post 11371024)
Looking at UK, we have a sad history of producing decent kit that nobody else buys, thus stuffing the unit cost through the roof. Yes, we need (?) a Defence industry, but my gut feeling is that go-it-alone days are long gone. Collaboration is the way ahead, surely? Stuff Challenger xx and buy in to a programme with Korea or [dare I say] Germany.
|
Originally Posted by Ripton
(Post 11371039)
If we end up with a Rheinmetall turret, are we going to end up having to ask the Germans nicely to let us sell/lend/donate it to others? At the moment I can't see why buying German is a viable military option.
|
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 11371042)
The U.K. BAe and Rheinmetall UK combined to form a single U.K. company, so probably not.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:02. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.