The War in Ukraine

[suffolkowner]

Its been a long, long, long time since Canada announced any sort of meaningful arms contribution. Have to wonder if we continue to blow cold over the summer/fall months or is there a potential radical shift in what we are willing to send over about to happen.

do we have anything left in the closet to send?

could give lots of stuff if we took the initiative to replace or modernize, its been 2 yrs already.

We got 500 TAPV's and are about to get new LUVW and NGFV

LUVW

• AM General - JLTV• Armatec • Oshkosh - JLTV• Roshel


NGFV

• General Dynamics - Eagle• Oshkosh - JLTV• Thales - Hawkei

 

[PrairieFella]

We got 500 TAPV's

Russia would thank us for giving the Ukrainians those heaps. Maybe we can pull a sneaky and give them to Russia and watch vehicles immediately self-immolate.

 

[suffolkowner]

Russia would thank us for giving the Ukrainians those heaps. Maybe we can pull a sneaky and give them to Russia and watch vehicles immediately self-immolate.

ehh first think the Ukrainians would do is pull the crane and tire

 

[Skysix]

The rest of NATO should call Orban's bluff and use the opportunity to amend the NATO treaty.

AGREE to a new membership class of "non participating member" whose members lose their right to vote on any motions or resolutions that have any actual or potential implications or effects upon the nation or conflict they are not participating in but which remain full members otherwise.

But add clauses that allow member to have their vote completely removed for no longer adhering to the principles of the treaty.

Another that mandates and defines acceptable military spending and sets a required minimum percentage of GDP. Say 3% in times of conflict declared or otherwise involving any NATO member.

Also a definition of conflict or aggression that is more than purely kinetic and covers all 6 domains: Air, Land, Sea, Space, cyber and Information (miss and diss activity within NATO).

And finally, a new clause for members who actively and persistently act in opposition to a supermajority of NATO members to be ejected from NATO.

Much as I would like to see Orban's antics cease, there is also Serbia, Bulgaria and Turkey who might be acting in a similar if not coordinated way soon, so I doubt Orban would agree to NATO's counter demand.

 

[Skysix]

.

 

[KevinB]

The rest of NATO should call Orban's bluff and use the opportunity to amend the NATO treaty.

AGREE to a new membership class of "non participating member" whose members lose their right to vote on any motions or resolutions that have any actual or potential implications or effects upon the nation or conflict they are not participating in but which remain full members otherwise.

But add clauses that allow member to have their vote completely removed for no longer adhering to the principles of the treaty.

Another that mandates and defines acceptable military spending and sets a required minimum percentage of GDP. Say 3% in times of conflict declared or otherwise involving any NATO member.

Also a definition of conflict or aggression that is more than purely kinetic and covers all 6 domains: Air, Land, Sea, Space, cyber and Information (miss and diss activity within NATO).

And finally, a new clause for members who actively and persistently act in opposition to a supermajority of NATO members to be ejected from NATO.

Much as I would like to see Orban's antics cease, there is also Serbia, Bulgaria and Turkey who might be acting in a similar if not coordinated way soon, so I doubt Orban would agree to NATO's counter demand.

3% is nothing if a NATO conflict erupted. You’re going to see 10%+ and want it there unless your mandarin is top notch

 

[CBH99]

The rest of NATO should call Orban's bluff and use the opportunity to amend the NATO treaty.

AGREE to a new membership class of "non participating member" whose members lose their right to vote on any motions or resolutions that have any actual or potential implications or effects upon the nation or conflict they are not participating in but which remain full members otherwise.

But add clauses that allow member to have their vote completely removed for no longer adhering to the principles of the treaty.

Another that mandates and defines acceptable military spending and sets a required minimum percentage of GDP. Say 3% in times of conflict declared or otherwise involving any NATO member.

Also a definition of conflict or aggression that is more than purely kinetic and covers all 6 domains: Air, Land, Sea, Space, cyber and Information (miss and diss activity within NATO).

And finally, a new clause for members who actively and persistently act in opposition to a supermajority of NATO members to be ejected from NATO.

Much as I would like to see Orban's antics cease, there is also Serbia, Bulgaria and Turkey who might be acting in a similar if not coordinated way soon, so I doubt Orban would agree to NATO's counter demand.

Do you mean if a member state pays the 2% of GDP & is committed to fulfilling its other NATO obligations (such as air policing an allied country, and committing to the collective defence of the alliance) but does NOT want to participate in a certain operation for whatever reason - there be a category created for 'non participating member' that eliminates their right to vote on any motions or resolutions in regards to that particular situation, but otherwise enjoy the benefits of being a member of the alliance?

(I know that's basically what you just said, I'm just wanting to make sure I understand the proposition correctly)


I think that's a good idea to be honest. It would certainly make things easier for some of our Eastern European members if a theatre of operations starts against their next door neighbour, who will still be their next door neighbour once operations have ceased.


EDIT - I wonder what the world would look like if NATO just expanded to include everybody, minus a few inherently poor countries such as Sudan & Yemen?

I also wonder what this current situation between Russia & Ukraine would look like if NATO had accepted Russia into the fold back in the 90's? Would there still be a war like there is now? Or...??

 

[KevinB]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1796343280948670942

 

[KevinB]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1796449253323366683

 

[PrairieFella]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1796343280948670942

That is fucking insane. An early T54 ain't that different from the WW2 T44 tanks. We're talking late 40s tech here. The Western equivalent would be use rolling out some Centurions with the 20lb cannon for front line use. Yikes.

 

[brihard]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1796343280948670942

Friggin’ Antiques Roadshow over there…

 

[Rudburg]

That is fucking insane. An early T54 ain't that different from the WW2 T44 tanks. We're talking late 40s tech here. The Western equivalent would be use rolling out some Centurions with the 20lb cannon for front line use. Yikes.

A few OSINT sources are now wondering if the Russian storage bases might have run out of salvageable T72s.

Not ideal, but even older tanks can still be useful if they are used in a limited role. I seem to recall that the Israelis still have some Centurion variants and derivatives in service (but not as MBTs). Using older and potentially obsolescent equipment has always been part of Soviet/Russian planning. The Russians probably see T54s and T55s as potentially still useful in an infantry support role, as 100mm HE and the coax MG will still be effective at killing dismounts or unarmored targets.

That said, it's still a very limited platform. It would be extremely vulnerable to any modern AT system and wouldn't stand much chance in a tank-on-tank fight. Due to the age, keeping it running would also be a problem for the maintainers.

 

[daftandbarmy]

A few OSINT sources are now wondering if the Russian storage bases might have run out of salvageable T72s.

Not ideal, but even older tanks can still be useful if they are used in a limited role. I seem to recall that the Israelis still have some Centurion variants and derivatives in service (but not as MBTs). Using older and potentially obsolescent equipment has always been part of Soviet/Russian planning. The Russians probably see T54s and T55s as potentially still useful in an infantry support role, as 100mm HE and the coax MG will still be effective at killing dismounts or unarmored targets.

That said, it's still a very limited platform. It would be extremely vulnerable to any modern AT system and wouldn't stand much chance in a tank-on-tank fight. Due to the age, keeping it running would also be a problem for the maintainers.

Sadly, we're in a battle of attrition with the wrong guys... new thinking is needed, not more kit.

Russian Army Has Received Hundreds of T-90M Tanks Under Surged Production - Reports​

Russian Army Has Received Hundreds of T-90M Tanks Under Surged Production - Reports

The Russian Army has reportedly recently several hundred T-90M tanks ready for frontline operations, according to an anonymous source cited by state media outlet Sputnik.

militarywatchmagazine.com

 

[Halifax Tar]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1796343280948670942

I'd imagine they just grabbing what ever is easiest to get up and running and pumping them out. I have a hard time believe they have depleted their T series and are down to T54s now.

As said above, even a Sherman is better than no tank; and will still work in the anti infantry and anti soft target role.

 

[PrairieFella]

As said above, even a Sherman is better than no tank; and will still work in the anti infantry and anti soft target role.

I'm not so sure, a quality tank crew is expensive and takes a long time to produce. It's basically a death sentence but some of the old shit on the line where it can be decimated by the lowliest of AT rockets or autocannons.

 

[Rudburg]

Russian Army Has Received Hundreds of T-90M Tanks Under Surged Production - Reports​

Russian Army Has Received Hundreds of T-90M Tanks Under Surged Production - Reports

The Russian Army has reportedly recently several hundred T-90M tanks ready for frontline operations, according to an anonymous source cited by state media outlet Sputnik.

militarywatchmagazine.com

I'm skeptical of the claims made in that article. 1500 tanks a year would be a massive increase over post-Soviet production, which peaked around 200 in 2008. What Is Missing From This Russian Tank Factory Promo Video? Tanks

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'm not so sure, a quality tank crew is expensive and takes a long time to produce. It's basically a death sentence but some of the old shit on the line where it can be decimated by the lowliest of AT rockets or autocannons.

As we have seen in this war, quality of training is a secondary factor to getting barrels pointed in the right direction. When you don't care about the number of casualties you don't have to care about your point. Not that you're wrong, just think of it from the Russian point.

 

[PrairieFella]

As we have seen in this war, quality of training is a secondary factor to getting barrels pointed in the right direction. When don't care about the number of casualties you don't have to care about your point. Not that you're wrong, just think of it from the Russian point.

You make a good point. When you have millions of second class citizens to throw into the meat grinder, training is secondary.

 

[Rudburg]

You make a good point. When you have millions of second class citizens to throw into the meat grinder, training is secondary.

Under the Soviet conscript system, tank crews could be trained in about 60 days, but it seems to vary from one unit to another.
They weren't exactly elite, but they could drive, shoot and follow orders.

The Russians might be doing it in less time now but I haven't seen any much information relating to their training system since the war started.

Older conscripts that have been called back to service might only get a few days of training before they are expected to fight.

 

[Maxman1]

I seem to recall that the Israelis still have some Centurion variants and derivatives in service (but not as MBTs).

Some of them are our old Centurions after we switched to Leopards.