RogerdeLluria
Staff Sergeant
- 1,325
- Jul 5, 2015
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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.
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?Maybe Russians can only manufacture 200 (new) tanks per year, but we we have yet to manufacture a single (new) one.
Are they new construction or refurbs of existing hulls and/or turrets?The Lima Arsenal in Ohio (U.S.) produces about 135 M2 Abrams a year.
When I said not a single (new) one, I meant "to be delivered to Ukraine". Nevertheless I wasn't that far from reality.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.
Those 135 tanks should be considered refurbishments, since they reuse older hulls.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.
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.I think that the biggest economy of the world could do much better.
As far as I know 2A6 is no longer in production, nor are the Spanish variant 2EI 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)
Snautzer01,I would likeBiffF15 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.
There is also a big difference in US Abrams refurbishment to Russian refurbishment.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.
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.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 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.Snautzer01,
I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. Reply and I will have a go at it.
Cheers,
Biff
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.
Denniss / Snauzer01,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.
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 SEPv3The Lima Arsenal is currently manufacturing the M1A2 SEPv3 tank as well as the M1126 Stryker, both types being new builds
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.There is also a big difference in US Abrams refurbishment to Russian refurbishment.
Apparently Russians gathered again for second consecutive day in a training ground and Ukrainian missiles massacred them again.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.
Yeah. Forbes is pretty bad about that.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.