"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (8 Viewers)

[RogerdeLluria]

Agreed. This is the point here. Avdiivka is another Russian failure.

The ratio of losses was 7 to 1 in favour of Ukraine.

Russia - 143 million people. Ukraine - 43 million people as at 2021 . Lets round them to 140 and 40.

At an ongoing 7 to 1 loss ratio Russia runs out of population and is still missing another population
without having won (mind you, it's like trying to win an earthquake for them).

Seven time 40 million is 280 million. Add in Russia's inability to manufacture and supply.

T-55's now in use ? 1960's Centurion fodder.

Unfortunately those are pre-invasion numbers. We have to remove the population that lives in Russian controlled areas and those that fled the country. The real population of "Free Ukraine" is estimated to be around 30 million, 32 at most. Add to that, that old people is more prone to remain than the youngsters and that a big chunk of those population don't fight in wars. As much as I hate to say it, Ukraine has its own demographic catastrophe.

Maybe we should instead consider labor force, that leaves around 15 million for Ukraine and 75 million for Russia. Most of those are needed back at home to sustain the economy and war production. Besides, a 7:1 exchange ratio here and there doesn't make that ratio true globally. I don't know what the ratio is since the start of the war, but I would be happy if it was better that 2:1

Of course Ukraine has some potential advantages, but they require the right political, economic, and military actions from the west.
- International (US, EU, Others) economic support that helps to keep the economy alive. But that may change if "certain former president that cannot be named" is reelected.
- The same international actors could do all war production for Ukraine completely obliterating Russian production. But so far we have only helped Ukraine with excedents and old systems, we have yet to start war production. The whole west with an economy that is orders of magnitude that of Russia cannot keep pace with Russian artillery shell production for instance. Maybe Russians can only manufacture 200 (new) tanks per year, but we we have yet to manufacture a single (new) one.
- And last but not least, Ukrainians are fighting an existential war, while Russians fight an unnecessary war of conquest, but they need our unconditional help.

 

[WARSPITER]

True. As I posted, an ongoing loss ratio would give that result. The thing is that even at lower rates, how long before
Russia has to start biting into their own labour force.

Things such as 200 tanks manufactured per year don't seem to be the case. The bulk so far has been refurbished
older vehicles. Given the loss rate it is also becoming clear as to why the Centurion fodder is being sent out.

Russia is already drawing munitions from North Korea as well which is an indication of their military logistics
state.

I agree as to support countries efforts so far. The only question there is how much production capacity has been
paired down since the end of the cold war and how long will it take to ramp things up once the political will is
finally there to do it. That is a race the Western nations can win but wha is the state of readiness ?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Maybe Russians can only manufacture 200 (new) tanks per year, but we we have yet to manufacture a single (new) one.

Is that true, refurbs aside, NATO hasn't produced a single Abrams, Challenger, Leopard or LeClerc in the past twelve months? What are those MBT factories (General Dynamics, BAE/KMW/Rheinmetall and Nexter) doing?

Good thing the Poles ordered those K2 tanks (and invested in the KF-21 fighter) from Hyundai then. By 2030 if not before, the South Koreans are going to be a dominant player in latest Gen rearmament.

 

[Denniss]

I believe Leo2 A6 and newer are still in new production although many were upgraded from A4/A5. Limited availability of older tanks requires some production from scratch.
Those ex-swiss Leo2 will be refurbished and likely sent to the Czechs as part of Ringtausch program (more T-72s for Uktraine)

 

[GrauGeist]

The Lima Arsenal in Ohio (U.S.) produces about 135 M2 Abrams a year.

The main reason tank production is down, is due mostly to the fact that the Marines are phasing their MBTs out, leaving the Army with a surplus.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Lima Arsenal in Ohio (U.S.) produces about 135 M2 Abrams a year.

Are they new construction or refurbs of existing hulls and/or turrets?

 

[RogerdeLluria]

Is that true, refurbs aside, NATO hasn't produced a single Abrams, Challenger, Leopard or LeClerc in the past twelve months? What are those MBT factories (General Dynamics, BAE/KMW/Rheinmetall and Nexter) doing?

Good thing the Poles ordered those K2 tanks (and invested in the KF-21 fighter) from Hyundai then. By 2030 if not before, the South Koreans are going to be a dominant player in latest Gen rearmament.

When I said not a single (new) one, I meant "to be delivered to Ukraine". Nevertheless I wasn't that far from reality.

I don't know about the other countries tanks, but regarding Abrams ...
"The U.S. doesn't build new tanks from scratch. It has a fleet of about 2,500 Abrams, and takes older tanks, tears them down and and uses the empty hull as a starting point to build a new one. Some hulls have been refurbished multiple times."

Tank manufacturing plant in small Ohio city plays big role in Ukraine war

Thousands of miles from the front lines, a sprawling manufacturing plant in the small midwestern city of Lima, Ohio, is playing a critical role in the effort to arm Ukraine as it fends off the Russian invasion.

www.pbs.org

And the pace of refurbishment is not stellar, only 12 per month.

US produces 12 Abrams tanks per month, in the 1980s it was 75

The U.S. military industry's production capabilities have narrowed down to 12 M1 Abrams tanks per month, or only up to 135 vehicles per year, sources say.

bulgarianmilitary.com

Meanwhile it's estimated that Russia has produced more than 2000 tanks in 2023. It is true that most are just refurbishments of older types (going as far as t-55) and that they just produced 200 new tanks, but that is amazing compared to about 135 refurbished tanks and 0 completely new ones for the US things.

Analyzing russian Report of 2,100 Tanks Produced in 2023, and Where's the Catch in These Data | Defense Express

Let's separate russian real production capacities from with the declared statistics with signs of cherry-picking manipulations

en.defence-ua.com

I think that the biggest economy of the world could do much better.

 

[RogerdeLluria]

The Lima Arsenal in Ohio (U.S.) produces about 135 M2 Abrams a year.

The main reason tank production is down, is due mostly to the fact that the Marines are phasing their MBTs out, leaving the Army with a surplus.

Those 135 tanks should be considered refurbishments, since they reuse older hulls.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I think that the biggest economy of the world could do much better.

The US, like much of the West has succumbed to the dual vices of Just in time (JIT) manufacturing/inventory management and offshoring. Meaning that you produce only what you think will meet your immediate needs and keep no inventory or latent production capacity, thus leaving nearly zero surge capability. After Dec 1941, Washington ordered Ford, GM, etc. to start making bombers and tanks, Singer sewing machines to switch over to machine guns, etc. But how do you do that today, when most of the US consumer goods are made offshore, and where Ford can't switch a F-150 line over to Abrams, and when the expertise and tech to produce a F-35 or Patriot missile is far removed from any consumer goods produced domestically. I think Washington was blinded by their quick successes in GW1 and GW2, where outside of the cost of occupation, you don't need to be ready to produce tons of offensive kit and especially the millions of 155mm artillery shells.

 

[RogerdeLluria]

I believe Leo2 A6 and newer are still in new production although many were upgraded from A4/A5. Limited availability of older tanks requires some production from scratch.
Those ex-swiss Leo2 will be refurbished and likely sent to the Czechs as part of Ringtausch program (more T-72s for Uktraine)

As far as I know 2A6 is no longer in production, nor are the Spanish variant 2E
From what I read 2A7 is a conversion from older 2A6
I'm not sure, but I think that 2A7+ are new-built tanks. Qatar received around 60 in 2018
Hungary also ordered 54 2A7+. They received the 1rst tank in december 2023.

So I was definitely wrong when i said not a single (new) tank. Europe has produced exactly one completely new tank in 2023

Norway has ordered the newest variant 2A8, and I think Germany and Italy are also interested. But the 1rst tank is not expected until 2026.

Norway's Leopard 2 tanks will be new 2A8 variant with active protection system | Shephard

Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) has announced that Norway's tanks will be of the 2A8 standard, as will any planned German procurement of new-build Leopard 2s.

www.shephardmedia.com

 

[GrauGeist]

The Lima Arsenal is currently manufacturing the M1A2 SEPv3 tank as well as the M1126 Stryker, both types being new builds

In addition, they are also performing upgrades to older M1s for export or National Guard units, depending on version level.

They also have a repair and refurbishment site, for battle damaged AFVs.

The plant site is ridiculously huge, with the main production facility being 1M square feet.

 

[BiffF15]

I would like BiffF15 view. I have read what he said about dogfighting.
But what about this? So low. Ground support?
I think one of the reasons why eto allies got dangerous in ground attack is that they had a lot of planes. AND a plan.
Cant see the plan in this. Not enough swarms to just strole over the battlefield with those eager ukr guys with manpads and what have you.

Now i do not think they are fools but what can be the benifit? What target is valuable enough to risk these assets.

Snautzer01,

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. Reply and I will have a go at it.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[WARSPITER]

The Lima Arsenal is currently manufacturing the M1A2 SEPv3 tank as well as the M1126 Stryker, both types being new builds

In addition, they are also performing upgrades to older M1s for export or National Guard units, depending on version level.

They also have a repair and refurbishment site, for battle damaged AFVs.

The plant site is ridiculously huge, with the main production facility being 1M square feet.

There is also a big difference in US Abrams refurbishment to Russian refurbishment.

Each Abrams refurbishment means completely done to the hull which is then fully cleaned
and checked. After that it's any new parts necessary from bolts and nuts all the way through.
Essentially the quality control is very high resulting in what is basically the same as a new tank.

Compared to the Russian refurbishment system this is chalk and cheese.

 

[Glider]

Is that true, refurbs aside, NATO hasn't produced a single Abrams, Challenger, Leopard or LeClerc in the past twelve months? What are those MBT factories (General Dynamics, BAE/KMW/Rheinmetall and Nexter) doing?

Good thing the Poles ordered those K2 tanks (and invested in the KF-21 fighter) from Hyundai then. By 2030 if not before, the South Koreans are going to be a dominant player in latest Gen rearmament.

I certainly agree that S Korea is lining itself up to be a major weapons manufacturer in the area, if not the world. They have the technology, design and are really good at producing things quickly, at a cost effective price.

 

[Denniss]

Snautzer01,

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. Reply and I will have a go at it.

Cheers,
Biff

I assume the question was why a SU-35 partners with one or more SU-34 for those glide bomb attack runs. Ukraine has no ability (yet) to catch SU-34 with A2A weapons so deep in enemy area.

 

[Frog]

The US, like much of the West has succumbed to the dual vices of Just in time (JIT) manufacturing/inventory management and offshoring. Meaning that you produce only what you think will meet your immediate needs and keep no inventory or latent production capacity, thus leaving nearly zero surge capability. After Dec 1941, Washington ordered Ford, GM, etc. to start making bombers and tanks, Singer sewing machines to switch over to machine guns, etc. But how do you do that today, when most of the US consumer goods are made offshore, and where Ford can't switch a F-150 line over to Abrams, and when the expertise and tech to produce a F-35 or Patriot missile is far removed from any consumer goods produced domestically. I think Washington was blinded by their quick successes in GW1 and GW2, where outside of the cost of occupation, you don't need to be ready to produce tons of offensive kit and especially the millions of 155mm artillery shells.

No machine guns for Singer :
M1 carbines receivers ;
Norden bomb sights ;
A 500 M1911A1 pistols educational order (one of the most sought after .45s...)
M5 Anti Aircraft gun directors

 

[BiffF15]

I assume the question was why a SU-35 partners with one or more SU-34 for those glide bomb attack runs. Ukraine has no ability (yet) to catch SU-34 with A2A weapons so deep in enemy area.

Denniss / Snauzer01,

My guess is the SU-35 is escorting the -34s. I would expect the preponderance of training the SU-34 guys do is air to ground, while the opposite is likely true for the SU-35.

And by Western standards their training is below par.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[RogerdeLluria]

The Lima Arsenal is currently manufacturing the M1A2 SEPv3 tank as well as the M1126 Stryker, both types being new builds

As far as I know even M1A2 SEPv3 are built using older hulls, even Australia bought about a hundred M1A2 older second hand hulls from the US to be built locally as "new" M1A2 SEPv3

There is also a big difference in US Abrams refurbishment to Russian refurbishment.

That sure. American tanks are maybe 80-90% new, only the hull is reused. Russians, well, if they can get the tank to move or the canon to fire (not necessarily both) the tank is sent to the front.

 

[RogerdeLluria]

Its being reported that a couple of Ukrainian HIMARS killed 65+ Russian soldiers in a Russian training ground near Trudivske (Donetsk region).
Apparently a commander ordered them to line up despite being not too far from the frontlines.

Apparently Russians gathered again for second consecutive day in a training ground and Ukrainian missiles massacred them again.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Interesting article, but the author misses the mark.
It's not "sad news" that drones did the work of artillery and it's not a result of the U.S. Congress.

First of all, yes, artillery could have done the job, but to bring artillery to bear, it needs to be mived into position and fed coordinates. It also becomes a target by the enemy.
The drones can move in real-time and provide little or no warning to the enemy, as was the case here. They struck in waves, and succeeded in taking out their targets with zero risk to Ukrainian assets.

It would be refreshing to read an article that provides facts and details without political and opinion hyperventilating.

Yeah. Forbes is pretty bad about that.