The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
IMO the worst designed AFV of Russian/Soviet origin in the last half century. It should have been mothballed, but for some reason they decided to keep it roaming. Technically the T-14 is in roughly the same state - no known program of record (anymore), only a handful of machines made, used for testing purposes only, but it wasn't even sighted in Ukraine.
I believe it is quite likely that Russia is running the little BMPT it has (IIRC reportedly 10 prior to losing one) with only half a crew.
Really? We've been operating them since the early 2000s, deploying them in an air defence role. They've been sold as functioning combat aircraft. The RAF spent money on upgrading our early Tranche 1s to the same standard as later Tranche 1s, specifically to add more combat abilities, so they could do air to ground as well as air to air. We bought 53 of them, mostly single-seater.
SolarisKenzo
Active Member
Tr.1 air-to-ground capabilities are extremely basic and, since Ukrainians are using planes only in ground support roles ( it is simply impossible to counter Russian mig-31s in their a-a dome ), I suppose Tranche 1s are really not useful to them.
And, if I may, EFs are modern fighter jets that you don't want to risk in Ukraine.
Going back to Tranche 1s, Italy and Spain, for example, use them only in training and air-policing roles.
No combat roles at all.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6,765
Not the worst. But the worst to see production. I don't think it's the same state as the T-14, since the BMPT has been exported to at least two countries, Kazakhstan and Algeria, and is being used in line units. The T-14 is only in trials.
EDIT: Questions were asked about Ugledar. It appears Russia has faced a disaster there comparable to the mess at Belogorovka. We have confirmed losses of 30+ Russian armored vehicles, including at least 13 MBTs. The open terrain, the tall buildings in town, and the inability of Russian artillery to suppress longer-ranged western howitzers makes this a difficult nut for Russia to crack. If Russia could attack west or north of it and threaten supply routes, this could be overcome, but for whatever reason that's not happening.
Moscow calling
Белогоровка 2.0 - 31 (тридцать одна) единица уничтоженной бронетехники 155-й отдельной гвардейской бригады морской пехоты ТОФ РФ в ходе штурма Угледара. Были потеряны 13 танков Т-72Б3, 12 БМП 1/2, 2 МТ-ЛБ и 1 ИМР. Отмечу, что это составляет примерно половину от танкового батальона, входящего в...
t.me
Moscow calling
Угледар, артиллерийский налёт ВСУ на атакующую без прикрытия артиллерией, авиацией и комплексами РЭБ колонну 155-й бригады морской пехоты ТОФ РФ. Хотя, насчет "без прикрытия" я, пожалуй, загнул - с миллионов диванов их поддерживают миллионы Z-патриотов, строящих комментарии про "свинорез"...
t.me
EDIT2: While the situation in Ugledar remains bad for Russian, it appears Russian forces are threatening Chasov Yar and Stupochki behind Artemovsk/Bakhmut. It also appears the road to Seversk is effectively cut with Russian forces contesting the villages of Praskovievka and Krasnaya Gora. Note the source is Russian, so grain of salt, etc. It's telling that Russian forces haven't been able to take the village of Krasnoe/Ivanovskoe, that sits on the road west out of southern Artemovsk/Bakhmut. There was also information of a Ukrainian counter-attack towards Klescheevka that failed.
Colonelcassad
❗️ Соледарское направление обстановка по состоянию на 20.00 9 февраля 2023 года В Бахмуте (Артёмовске) и окрестностях продолжаются ожесточенные бои. Подразделения ЧВК «Вагнер» и отдельные формирования ВС РФ активно продавливают оборону ВСУ. На Соледарском участке возобновился штурм украинских...
t.me
VK.com | VK
vk.com
Last edited:
I've no idea where the training thing comes from but it keeps popping up on posts, despite it being quite easy to prove otherwise.
As is, we're holding I think 30, ten in storage and twenty in active service- I believe they can't use Meteor but they're relatively low air time cabs and we're talking about retiring them in 2025 anyway. Can't think of a better home for them than Ukraine if we're shifting them.
How long to train ground crews for this aircraft?
I was referring to the claim that the T1's were only training aircraft. They're still a complex, twin-engined fast jet so getting ground crews and pilots up to speed will be a challenge. If the Poles would get the jets fly in and out of a Polish airbase for depot level maintenance, that might ease the requirements but whether that would be politically acceptable, I wouldn't know.
KipPotapych
Active Member
Funny how this guy thinks (completely) otherwise, lol. I read the article when it was posted a few ago, but remembered now after reading the destruction post and then yours.
Why Russia’s ‘Terminator’ Vehicle Might Be The Next Stage In Tank Evolution (Updated: Terminator Termination)
Russia's new BMPTs have performed well in Ukraine, especially compared to Russia’s other armor. Is it time to rethink armored warfare?
www.forbes.com
KipPotapych
Active Member
Without a question, that would make Poland directly involved in the conflict.
KipPotapych
Active Member
I did a little more digging today after reading your post and it does appear that the source of the article is correct and the Tranche 1s aren't going to be particularly useful in Ukraine from the operating perspective. Symbolism? Sure, but it doesn’t look like it can be anything more than that. Here is one of the better articles I read on the subject from the Royal United Services Institute:
Giving RAF Typhoons to Ukraine Would Be a Very Expensive Symbolic Gesture
No options should be ruled out when it comes to helping Ukraine. But the idea of transferring UK fighter aircraft makes little military sense.
www.rusi.org
It also quite nicely outlines why any but the most modern jets wouldn’t be a very viable option without the LRMs either, which I talked about earlier in this thread. I do not believe there is a way to make fighter jets work in Ukraine without going to war with Russia (though jets on their own are a questionable move itself as far as the line red line is concerned, in particular because the Ukes won’t be able to operate them from Ukraine - I am certain of that and I do not see anything that could even remotely convince me otherwise at the moment).
In turn, with no air power, tanks aren’t going to be particularly useful as far as the promised “counter-offensive” goes and the Ukrainians likely don’t have enough to go on the offensive any time soon anyway… Overall, things don’t particularly look good for Ukraine, imo. I see these numerous reports indicating that Ukraine is winning and going to win, push Russians out, some suggesting that includes Crimea as well, and we need to prepare for Russia losing the war, whatever that means. It looks to me more like Ukraine lost the initiative and with the expected Russian offensive, they actually may lose the entire Donbas and perhaps more. Who knows. We shall wait and see how things develop in the coming weeks.
Why? Poland already does tank repairs.
Some people disagree that Typhoons are not useful:I did a little more digging today after reading your post and it does appear that the source of the article is correct and the Tranche 1s aren't going to be particularly useful in Ukraine from the operating perspective. Symbolism? Sure, but it doesn’t look like it can be anything more than that. Here is one of the better articles I read on the subject from the Royal United Services Institute:
Giving RAF Typhoons to Ukraine Would Be a Very Expensive Symbolic Gesture
No options should be ruled out when it comes to helping Ukraine. But the idea of transferring UK fighter aircraft makes little military sense.
It also quite nicely outlines why any but the most modern jets wouldn’t be a very viable option without the LRMs either, which I talked about earlier in this thread. I do not believe there is a way to make fighter jets work in Ukraine without going to war with Russia (though jets on their own are a questionable move itself as far as the line red line is concerned, in particular because the Ukes won’t be able to operate them from Ukraine - I am certain of that and I do not see anything that could even remotely convince me otherwise at the moment).
In turn, with no air power, tanks aren’t going to be particularly useful as far as the promised “counter-offensive” goes and the Ukrainians likely don’t have enough to go on the offensive any time soon anyway… Overall, things don’t particularly look good for Ukraine, imo. I see these numerous reports indicating that Ukraine is winning and going to win, push Russians out, some suggesting that includes Crimea as well, and we need to prepare for Russia losing the war, whatever that means. It looks to me more like Ukraine lost the initiative and with the expected Russian offensive, they actually may lose the entire Donbas and perhaps more. Who knows. We shall wait and see how things develop in the coming weeks.
I also don't think delivery of modern jets, be it F-16, Hornets, or Typhoon will trigger a NATO war with Russia. Putin is many things, but not suicidial.
Also, although things are a bit difficult at the moment, I don't see Ukraine losing, as long as US/Europe can keep the goods flowing.
Ukraine don't urgently need fighter jets -- they need spare parts. And they need munitions, and they need tanks. Also long-range missiles would make a big difference at this point in time. ATACMS for instance.
KipPotapych
Active Member
Because flying missions out of Poland makes it directly involved in the conflict? Because that is exactly what it is.
The key here, I believe, is “some people”. What are the qualifications of the guy you are quoting?
This is not a very good argument because there are two sides to the coin. At the very least, making this argument, you are implying that one side, namely Putin, is not suicidal. What about the other side?
Assume one of the European members of NATO gets involved, say Poland. Let’s say that Russia strikes back. What is the next step? I can imagine the options and one of them is to immediately deescalate, in my opinion. But let’s say, for the sake of the argument, Russia sends a few nukes down the Europe way, what is then? The US nukes Russia? Someone else does? This is a losing argument, in my opinion.
What currently is happening and has been happening with our arms supplies is similar to a patient in a hospital. That is, the patient is about to die, we give him a shock and he comes back to life and while he is alive, we monitor; if the patient is closer to being dead again, we give him another shock to keep him alive. That is it. If the patient can withstand another attack, we will monitor and see what happens. Perhaps, we will provide just a tad more to keep that patient alive, but that is where we stop.
I don’t think LRM’s will be provided for the reasons I outlined above because neither side is suicidal, though we have been definitely testing the limit and we do not know where it actually is (see my post about commitment). Tanks are, supposedly, provided for an offensive, but I do not believe they can succeed without air support.
I don’t know what the solution is here.
SolarisKenzo
Active Member
Ukraine was invaded by Russia.
What you are basically saying is that we should let Russia conquer Ukraine, and because our arms supply is what is giving Ukraine a chance to defend themselves, we should stop it.
Basically you are saying that, because the patient was shot by a criminal and he is in critical condition, we should just let him die because what is keeping him alive is our help and he would otherwise die.
As a European, a person who knows many Ukrainians, who is helping in housing those poor refugees, who's got friends dying in Donbass to defend their homes, your words are an insult to all those who have lost their lives and to all the Europeans who are making great sacrifices to help the Ukrainian people defend themselves against the Kremlin dictator.
Nobody has suggested missions should be flown out of Poland.
I don't know, but in any case around here we look more at the information people are providing and the arguments they are making than their qualifications. If the info he is providing is incorrect/misleading and his arguments are weak then we should ignore it. Converseley if the info he is providing is correct and the arguments are strong we should pay attention.
NATO will not "get involved" apart from supplying equipment and ammo (and training and intel -- funny that Russia did not already attack NATO...)
I strongly disagree with your comparison of Ukraine to a dying patient. Ukraine still has control of most of it's territory, and is receiving more supplies every day. Longer range rockets/missiles will be supplied, and it will not lead to WW3.
Western fighter jets are not urgently needed. Ukraine managed one year without, they can manage still for quite some time without. Spare parts for their MiGs I am sure is still welcome though. And more SAMs -- which they are getting: Patriot, SAMP-T, and more NASAMs and IRIS-T, all are coming.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
It seems this guy only saw the BMPT on photos and some reports on it, thought it looked cool, and believed its reported (but unsubstantiated) success to be some big revelation. He doesn't seem to understand why the BMPT was developed in that specific form.Funny how this guy thinks (completely) otherwise, lol. I read the article when it was posted a few ago, but remembered now after reading the destruction post and then yours.
Why Russia’s ‘Terminator’ Vehicle Might Be The Next Stage In Tank Evolution (Updated: Terminator Termination)
Russia's new BMPTs have performed well in Ukraine, especially compared to Russia’s other armor. Is it time to rethink armored warfare?
The idea of a BMPT is to provide tanks with firepower that is more relevant vs infantry, particularly in urban areas (requiring high gun elevation), and which is sufficiently protected in those areas.
In western armed forces, that's what the IFV does. It ticks all the boxes. But Russia didn't quite have one. It did have the BMP-3, but it didn't have sufficient armor, not by a long shot, nor did it have sufficient gun elevation.
Russia did exhibit its ideal BMPT concept, simply a T-15 IFV. But it was not ready for production yet.
So the current BMPT is the result of a long list of compromises Russia's defense industries must have made, resulting in a sub-optimal design that lacks capabilities Russia would have wanted.
No one is talking about jets flying combat missions from Poland. I'd suggested that the technical burden of supporting any aircraft could be tackled by doing any depot level maintenance at a nearby friendly airfield, using personnel already familiar with the aircraft.
The cabs could be cycled through and Ukrainian maintainers could work alongside, learning the job as they go. Routine arming and fueling can be done locally.
The cabs could be cycled through and Ukrainian maintainers could work alongside, learning the job as they go. Routine arming and fueling can be done locally.
According to this old press release all Tranche 1 Typhoon should be upgraded to block 5: Eurofighter Typhoon - Major Retrofit For Early Eurofighter Typhoon Aircraft Begins
About block 5:
Does not look too shabby to me? So perhaps a relevant question would be if all Tranche 1 really were upgraded to block 5?
About block 5:
Eurofighter Typhoon
Does not look too shabby to me? So perhaps a relevant question would be if all Tranche 1 really were upgraded to block 5?