It's in the article I posted above and Foreign Affairs magazine which is unfortunately a pay site.

Edit: DONT WANT TO FURTHER CLUTTER & DERAIL

BQ78 said:

---

It's in the article I posted above and Foreign Affairs magazine which is unfortunately a pay site.

---

All of the articles mention pulling back to the borders on February 23rd as the minimum Russia was willing to accept. Russia has never entertained the idea of restoring Ukraine's border prior to Russia's strategy of chewing it off bit by bit.

So what is Ukraine's goal in this war, because you always need to have a desired outcome with finite goals? Is it reclaim Ukraine as it was when the USSR fell? Is it depose Putin? What is the end game? Reading what many on this thread say, it seems they believe Putin is never going to talk or give up. So it sounds like endless war or at least years before it ends. We've sunk billions of our dollars into the first year, how much more will it take if this war continues, we can't afford that and Ukraine cannot survive without US support. I have no doubt US resolve will fail before Ukrainian and Russian resolve gives, so that is the weak link in any Ukrainian strategy> So what's the goal and can it be achieved before the US gives up?

Some sort of aerial threat occurring in the Northern part of the country now, notably Kyiv. I don't know if it's drones like before, but there are alerts on LiveUAMap of air defense working.

Denys gives a lot of tactical updates/analysis of the situation around Bakhmut in this video, especially starting at 6:17. It's well worth the watch. Basically, Ukraine's got to take back some land and protect their supply routes in order to keep Bakhmut.

Saw a report that the explosions are too powerful to be Shahed/Geran2. Missiles I'd guess.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Saw a report that the explosions are too powerful to be Shahed/Geran2. Missiles I'd guess.

---

Any link on the report? I can't find anything definitive. Some say drones. Others say missiles.

Waffledynamics said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Saw a report that the explosions are too powerful to be Shahed/Geran2. Missiles I'd guess.

---

Any link on the report? I can't find anything definitive. Some say drones. Others say missiles.

---

🇷🇺🇺🇦Ukrainians are reporting they were hit with something much bigger than drones.

— Theresa tretter (@tretter50001) January 26, 2023

Just found this quickly. There was another I had seen earlier as well

SCOOP- European allies revive talks over potential supply of fighter jets to Ukraine following tank move, as Lockheed Martin tells @FinancialTimes it is ready to meet conflict-related demand for F-16shttps://t.co/bXzstAlsbW

— Henry Foy (@HenryJFoy) January 25, 2023

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Who'd have thought that poor tactics can lead to significant losses of even good equipment?

And, Russian artillery isn't guided. They first have to hit a tank to hurt it. Odds are Russian artillery will not be a factor against the leopards and Abrams. Will some be lost? Certainly. It's a war and nothing is indestructible, but as long as the Ukrainians use them with good tactics, they'll probably perform just fine.

---

Also, Russian tankers about to have a bad year

Zeihan says we won't see Abrams in battlefield anytime soon due to the logistical tail required.

I think the idea is they can stay near Poland a while and allow tanks currently deployed opposite Belarus to head east. They could be repaired back inside Poland.

There was an earlier question about American light tanks and we have another one in the works after almost 50 years of not having one.

Light Armor



As some here are aware, the USMC and supporting USN assets are undergoing a massive paradigm shift as we speak. A thread on it in MIL board if anyone is interested. The Army is starting to explore one itself, albeit slightly smaller in scope. In essence, there has been a huge divide between Big Armor and Big Infantry for decades now in the Army. This has been identified as a huge weakness as we look forward to the future and how warfare is changing while addressing lessons learned from our ME conflicts. The idea is to have an armored unit whose sole purpose is to support the infantry. That means live with, train with, and fight with infantry units. Something that our current M1 formations do not do.

A new vehicle is needed for this role and the MPF is looking like it is going to be it. This means on call armored support that will be able to go places and react far quicker than our usual M1 armored columns. Flexibility is the key as we move to the future and as mentioned here, the logistical train for an M1 unit is kinda insane. The MPF has a diesel engine and will be much lighter. A true light tank, even if the Army is shying away from that term. It is smaller and has a smaller punch of course with a 105mm gun but it can also go places that Abrams cannot and deploy much, much faster.

We may yet still see massive armored columns dueling each other on open plains in the future but we KNOW scrappy slugfests in urban areas, wood lines, and trench systems will also occur and having infantry units with actual true integrated armored support will go a long way in answering that need. The fight in Ukraine I am positive has helped shape this decision as we shape our own future forces. Watching Russia roll out its forces in the invasion has been such a huge boon to us in terms of learning their capabilities and answering a lot of questions.

So, to answer the actual previous question as to if we have any true armor that can navigate those smaller bridges all over Eastern Europe, no......not yet. But it is coming.

"Lighter tanks are coming" has already been around for more than 30 years. Constrained budgets and a desire for ISR, planes and boats that cost many billions of dollars will continue to win out.


More surprisingly, current planning timelines may see the Abrams turn 70 while still in use.

What ****ing losers.

Quote:

---

3 people killed, 7 wounded as result of double tap missile strike against electrical infrastructure in Zaporizhzhia region. Object was attacked again when rescuers were on the site

---

https://liveuamap.com/en/2023/26-january-3-people-killed-7-wounded-as-result-of-double

Quote:

---

Ukrainian air defense shot down 47 of 55 missiles launched by Russia this morning. Kh-101, Kh-555, Kh-47, Kinzhal, Kaliber, Kh-59 cruise missiles, launched by Tu-95, Su-35, Mig-31K and naval vessels from Black Sea

---

https://liveuamap.com/en/2023/26-january-ukrainian-air-defense-shot-down-47-of-55-missiles

After they cancelled the Xm8 which was exactly that? Maybe this is a development of it, but if we want to send lighter tanks to Ukraine, there are actually numerous off the shelf light tanks out there that third world nations have. Cadillac Gage designed and build a bunch for smaller nations in the past.

Waffledynamics said:

---

What ****ing losers.

Quote:

---

3 people killed, 7 wounded as result of double tap missile strike against electrical infrastructure in Zaporizhzhia region. Object was attacked again when rescuers were on the site

---

https://liveuamap.com/en/2023/26-january-3-people-killed-7-wounded-as-result-of-double

---

Monsters.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

After they cancelled the Xm8 which was exactly that? Maybe this is a development of it, but if we want to send lighter tanks to Ukraine, there are actually numerous off the shelf light tanks out there that third world nations have. Cadillac Gage designed and build a bunch for smaller nations in the past.

---

Yah, neither option seem to be ideal.

• Too big, heavy, gas guzzling, hard to maintain, lots of logistical nightmare, but powerful and fast.
• Too small, light in punch, no different than old designs and capabilities, but easier to integrate.

Why is it there isn't something in the middle? Isn't something in the middle basically the K2 by South Korea made to go toe to toe with current armor threats in the wooded mountains?



This reminds me of the tin can tanks that fought in the pacific and were decimated by the japanese. There was a reason we went away from them back then.

What's the survivability against modern anti-armor munitions?

PJYoung said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

What ****ing losers.

Quote:

---

3 people killed, 7 wounded as result of double tap missile strike against electrical infrastructure in Zaporizhzhia region. Object was attacked again when rescuers were on the site

---

https://liveuamap.com/en/2023/26-january-3-people-killed-7-wounded-as-result-of-double

---

Monsters.

---

But one of Texags' resident orc defenders told me that Russia was not purposely targeting civilians or infrastructure

Survivability is shoot first and don't get hit. Keep moving, or lay low.

BREAKING: Putin spokesman says tanks from West constitute “direct involvement” in the Ukrainian war.

— Election Wizard 🇺🇸 (@ElectionWiz) January 26, 2023

92AG10 said:

---

"Lighter tanks are coming" has already been around for more than 30 years. Constrained budgets and a desire for ISR, planes and boats that cost many billions of dollars will continue to win out.


More surprisingly, current planning timelines may see the Abrams turn 70 while still in use.

---

Initial contract has already been awarded for about a 100 units with support elements. Whether it truly catches on or nah, remains to be seen of course. The paradigm is not going to be the actual units themselves but the doctrine of having them embedded with infantry units full time, to include stateside. Something our current Abrams do not, and really cannot, do.

Mouth - you are right and the current awardee did exactly that. Picked an off the shelf model already through the vast majority of it's development cycle. It will now just be modified to more exacting demands but most of the design work was already done before the contract was given.

B-1 - I don't know armor specs for the design yet. But probably safe to assume it will fall in between MBT and MRAPs. Thick plating is one thing but I am far more curious as to what kind of active defenses it will have.

Ukrainian war is again casting light on the question of the role of MBTs in future wars. There is no doubt that as of right now, they are still needed and maybe even critically so but as we continue to move forward, more options will be examined due to cost and maintenance. The main battlefield is also continuing to be shaped by urban and fortified areas and I only see that increasing. An area where massive turbine MBTs are not cost effective in working in. It is a fascinating discussion IMO and time will tell of course and no one as of yet knows what the final direction will be but there is also no doubt that there is a concerted push to at least explore the future of lighter, faster, and more flexible armor options with a change of thinking of how and when to use them. The big barrier I see though is the cost. New lines need to be created of course so as of right now, I actually believe the MPF is about 30% MORE expensive than an Abrams. Once things get settled in, that price should drop to comparable or below though.

MPF which I imagine will get IRON FIST.

1872walker said:

---

BREAKING: Putin spokesman says tanks from West constitute “direct involvement” in the Ukrainian war.

— Election Wizard 🇺🇸 (@ElectionWiz) January 26, 2023

---

Oh noes. What's he gonna do about it?