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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Other than older M-1 tanks, I don't think we have anything else other than M-48 and M-60 gate guards. I hope we've already been training a Ukrainian M-1 cadre.
Not Abrams, but still interesting. It's not clear if they're training in the UK currently.


But if they are, it gives the Ukrainian NCOs and troops a chance to stand down, a little.
 
Besides, isn't the .M1 Abrams kind of long in the tooth these days? And don't we have a stockpile of them out of service as they're considered unsurvivable on a modern battlefield?
Hardly. Perhaps the first gen M1 and M1 IP might be lesser than other M1 models given the 105mm M68 main gun but once you hit the M1A1 with the 120mm gun or the M1A2 which finally had a fire control system better than the M60A3 TTS, any of them, one for one, are the finest tank in the world. With the Israeli active defense systm and DU armor layered into the composite armor it will remain viable, when properly employed, for decades to come. Its biggest weakness is the fact that the turbine has an obscene fuel appetite. I personally would want to explore a replacement diesel power pack but I'm not SecDef.

We have huge stockpiles because of the Marines decision to rely on the Army for armor support and because congress has consistently bought more than we need from Lima as Defense Contractor Welfare. According to wiki we have "some 3,700 more M1A1 and M1A2 in storage" which are very current models.

This remains especially true since the economic damage from this war will prevent the Russian army from buying the T-14 Armata which might have been nearly a peer to the M1A1.

Now, I do not advocate that Ukraine should receive anything other than the tanks they are currently qualified on so long as combat operations continue but once there is a peace that looks to last 6 months +, they can start the transition to US M1A1 tanks and the necessary support infrastructure. This needs to be provided free ("loan") to Ukraine.
 
Never mind the academic claptrap. The pertinent perspective on Putin, Stalin, Hitler, et al, is encapsulated in Nineteen Eighty Four.
A necessary read for any responsible citizen of a democratic society.

While I agree that 1984 speaks for itself, dismissing Hitchens's book as "academic claptrap" isn't really fair. It's not academic, but simply Hitchens's views on ole George, written with the former's usual direct and intelligent style, and then correlating them to the time of writing, about twenty-odd years ago. And those reasons he presents are, yes, more pertinent in the age of "alternate facts" and "fake media".

Personally, I bemoan the lack of civics education in American schools (I'm part of the last few cohorts of American high-school students with a civics class being a graduation requirement.), and if I were a civics teacher I'd make a book report on 1984 and/or Animal Farm a mandatory part of passing my class.

But I'm edging close to politics and so won't go further here.
 
Read it, may have been in Jr High School at the time. Mike Harrington's work on democratic Socialism along with Orwell left me a leftist but with a distrust of authoritarians of all kinds.
 
There is a lot of effort being put into supplying the Ukraine armed forces with equipment that they are used to using and supporting. There is a lot of logic in that but it can only be a short term situation for the simple reason that there is only a limited supply of suitable equipment around.

The training on more common or more available western equipment needs to start now. The fighting isn't going to over in six months, this is now a long term situation and training on western equipment that will be available in six months has to start now. In armour probably this means Leopard 1 and M1 tanks as only these are likely to around in sufficient numbers.

In the Air we are looking mainly at F16 as a lot of nations used them and a lot of these are being or have been recently replaced. If the Nato nations are serious then we could continue production of the Typhoon the last of which are about to come off the production line but I cannot see people spending that kind of money.

Recently a lot of the emphasis has been on the ground equipment, but I would have thought a more urgent need is for aircraft. Can anyone think of a major ground war that has been won without control of the air since about 1920?
 
Can anyone think of a major ground war that has been won without control of the air since about 1920?
Diem Bien Phu, but that was more a major battle that actually ended the conflcit.
The Vietnamese pulled it off against America, but the terrain fought-over was too different to make that a useful comparison, and of course the restraints America imposed upon itself too.
If one was to examine all the major battles during the Vietnam War militarily, the US won hands down, (la Drang Valley, Khe Sanh, Tet and the Easter Offensive). As you say "restraints," make that "political restraints" were placed on the US military. Bumbling by politicians and some military leaders along with supporting an extremely corrupt South Vietnam government didn't help matters. During the whole time The US had almost complete control of the air over North and South Vietnam until the cease fire and withdraw in 1973. Saigon fell 2 years later.

Getting back to the Ukraine - weaponry and tactics along with Russian blunders seem to be showing that control of the air may not be a necessity, at least in this conflict. It should make one wonder why Russia is not committing more of it's air force to this conflict and why it hasn't made a mass effort to eliminate the UAF???

Caught this one a few days ago...

 
Personally, I bemoan the lack of civics education in American schools (I'm part of the last few cohorts of American high-school students with a civics class being a graduation requirement.),
Right on! My high school removed civics from the college prep curriculum, retaining it for vocational and "social arts" courses. Instead, we got a civics course labeled US History, with a thin smattering of history (which we'd just had in 8th grade) heavily weighted with political evolution of citizenship, rights and responsibilities, structures of government, and the judiciary system, presented in the light of the controversies that had shaped all these over time. We held town meetings, ran for office, elected officials, and had actual lawyers and judges come to class to hold court and "try cases". Today's kids don't get that experience, which is why we are where we are.
 

Users who are viewing this thread