Ukraine

[Ag3ma]

Yes, that would be in fact how informal logic -- in this case the almighty hypothetical syllogism -- works. If those saying the Ukrainian government is unable to handle the logistic burden of Abrams tanks are internet armchair generals, and spokespeople for the White House and DoD said as much, then they must be internet armchair generals.

If I can just intrude here with an important point...

This makes the assumption that spokespeople for the White House and DoD were telling the absolute, God's honest truth. I have noticed that you do not generally put a great deal of faith in their honesty, so there's no particular reason you should do so now. I don't trust them to be completely transparent either. And indeed, there's a fair chance they said it because it was a convenient thing to say to cover up their real reason.

Of course, if the USA and EU want, they can not just give Ukraine Western tanks, but also additional logisitcal capability to help use Western tanks.

 

[Dalisclock]

Well, not sure I'd say the Big Red 9 was one of the world's most famous guns, but yeah.

Though, in WW2, it wasn't just domestic production, the Germans had conquered loads of territory and inherited lots of, for example, French equipment, and factories making French equipment. They also had occupired Polish factories making Radom pistols for the Germans (and secretly making Radom pistols for the resistance until they got caught)

Interestingly, the German military procurement only applied to the military, not various paramilitary groups like the police or SS, who had to source their weapons from wherever they could. Instead of getting the best and most modern equipment, the SS got all sorts of weird stuff, some of it new and some of it captured from whoever they'd just conquered.

Germany had made SMGs to sell to the fascists in Spain during their civil war, some of which were captured by the communists who later fled to France. They got used by the French because they didn't have enough of their own MAS-38s, and then got captured by the Germans and re-used by them.

Over in the UK, they'd been using .455 Webleys, but then decided that .455 was too powerful for people to use with the small amount of training that they could get in big wars and had moved to .38 revolvers, but were using 9mm for their SMGs. And the homeguard was using whatever they could get, shotguns and US 30.06 weapons mixed in with .303s.

There was also the fact the German military was (intentionally) compartmentalized. You had the German Army( the Heer) the Waffen SS(the military branch of the SS) and at one point the fucking Luftwaffe had their own ground forces. None of them shared resources or logistics planning, but rather competed against each other, which means the process of supplying fuel, food, ammo and parts was even more difficult then it normally is, because none of these 3 armies actually did much in the way of cooperating with each other.

If you're thinking "That sounds overly complicated and also incredibly stupid", you're correct, because it was. Hitler, like many other authoritarians, didn't want any particular part of his government to have too much power because then it could possibly overthrow him, so it was SOP to have his subordinates given similar roles and even OVERLAPPING areas of responsibilities, so they're too busy scrambling against each other for resources and influence to threaten him(and also he gets to arbitrate).

Japan was arguably even worse during WW2, because the Army and the Navy apparently HATED each other and controlled the government fairly equally, with only the Emperor only able to mediate(if he cared to). The Japanese Army wanted to fight a land war in China while the Japanese Navy wanted to fight a Naval war in the pacific. Do you know how much they helped each other in these goals? Jack shit. Japan was basically fighting two wars in WW2 with two different militaries and neither of which had any interest in supporting each other. Fuck, the Japanese Navy waited months before telling the Japanese Army they lost 4 carriers at the battle of midway because 1.) Fuck the Army and 2.) Not waiting to admit the shame of defeat to the Army, who they hated. Needless to say, the Army was not super pleased by this for obvious reasons(including the fact the US Navy's ability to attack Japanese positions and Japanese supply lines was far less hindered then they thought).

It's been argued Russia is currently operating much the same way for the same reasons, which helps explain a lot of Russia's shitty performance(Apparently the North and South Donbass have separate Russian military commanders, who don't feel much like helping each other, as opposed to a united command). Ironically Facism(which is supposed to mean "strength though Unity" symbolized by a bundle of sticks tied together being stronger then a single stick) tends to be very fragmented and at odds with itself.

This isn't to say such regimes aren't a threat or dangerous(because they are) but they have a tendency hinder themselves as much as they do their enemies.

 

[Ag3ma]

If you're thinking "That sounds overly complicated and also incredibly stupid", you're correct, because it was. Hitler, like many other authoritarians, didn't want any particular part of his government to have too much power because then it could possibly overthrow him, so it was SOP to have his subordinates given similar roles and even OVERLAPPING areas of responsibilities, so they're too busy scrambling against each other for resources and influence to threaten him(and also he gets to arbitrate).

Hitler, of course, did not trust the Heer that much: neither it nor its generals were particularly loyal to him or the Nazi party. I think a substantial part of the Waffen-SS was to create an alternative military that was directly loyal to and reflect the greater glory of the party. Unsurprisingly, these (at least, the German units, not so much the non-German) tended to be prioritised for resourcing and so ended up as elite formations.

The Luftwaffe was... bizarre. A lot of the AA support for the armies was provided by the Luftwaffe, with these units effectively subordinate to whichever formations they were attached to. Crazily, despite being attched to armies, the crews did not have infantry training because they were Luftwaffe, so if they were unlucky enough to get caught up in ground combat, they were especially useless. Next, all those stupid para divisions which Germany had no ability to airlift (or even train how to use a parachute), plus even more insanely two goddamn Luftwaffe panzer divisions which had no airborne capabilites at all... just so Hermann Goering could fulfill a fantasy of having his own little army.

 

[Dalisclock]

The Luftwaffe was... bizarre. A lot of the AA support for the armies was provided by the Luftwaffe, with these units effectively subordinate to whichever formations they were attached to. Crazily, despite being attched to armies, the crews did not have infantry training because they were Luftwaffe, so if they were unlucky enough to get caught up in ground combat, they were especially useless.

The Perun video above mentions that when the Red Army caught onto the idea there were Luftwaffe ground troops which weren't very combat effective, they would relentlessly pick on them whenever they could. Which tracks. Sucks for the poor sods who were supposed to be servicing aircraft and instead are humping rifles on the eastern front.

For some reason this sounds like the idea for a survival war game. You were drafted into the Luftwaffe to fix planes but got sent to a luftwaffe infantry unit on the eastern front. You have a week of rifle training and a rifle. Also, the Red Army knows you're Luftwaffe and hates you.

Objective: SURVIVE the eastern front in the face of the Red Army until Germany surrenders. There are 3 difficulty settings: Hard, Fuck you, and Impossible. Easy mode is the "Quit" button.

Next, all those stupid para divisions which Germany had no ability to airlift (or even train how to use a parachute), plus even more insanely two goddamn Luftwaffe panzer divisions which had no airborne capabilites at all... just so Hermann Goering could fulfill a fantasy of having his own little army.

You get an army! You get an Army! Everyone gets an Army!

 

[Thaluikhain]

There was also the fact the German military was (intentionally) compartmentalized. You had the German Army( the Heer) the Waffen SS(the military branch of the SS) and at one point the fucking Luftwaffe had their own ground forces.

Getting a bit off-topic, but in of itself that's not that unusual. The RAF had their own ground forces, the RAF Regiment, founded during WW2 and existing to this day. Though it's there to take and defend airbases after the British lost some. Why they don't use the army for that I don't know. The modern Australian military has Air Defence Guards who are part of the RAAF, but more armed security guard than infantry soldier.

Also, in WW1, the British navy had substantial ground forces, because lots of volunteers for the military wanted to be navy, but they needed more army, so they sorta fudged it.

If you're thinking "That sounds overly complicated and also incredibly stupid", you're correct, because it was. Hitler, like many other authoritarians, didn't want any particular part of his government to have too much power because then it could possibly overthrow him, so it was SOP to have his subordinates given similar roles and even OVERLAPPING areas of responsibilities, so they're too busy scrambling against each other for resources and influence to threaten him(and also he gets to arbitrate).

I was led to believe that was due (at least in part) to ideology, survival of the fittest and all that. Have competing organisations fighting over the same job and the best one wins or summat.

Japan was arguably even worse during WW2, because the Army and the Navy apparently HATED each other and controlled the government fairly equally, with only the Emperor only able to mediate(if he cared to). The Japanese Army wanted to fight a land war in China while the Japanese Navy wanted to fight a Naval war in the pacific. Do you know how much they helped each other in these goals? Jack shit. Japan was basically fighting two wars in WW2 with two different militaries and neither of which had any interest in supporting each other. Fuck, the Japanese Navy waited months before telling the Japanese Army they lost 4 carriers at the battle of midway because 1.) Fuck the Army and 2.) Not waiting to admit the shame of defeat to the Army, who they hated. Needless to say, the Army was not super pleased by this for obvious reasons(including the fact the US Navy's ability to attack Japanese positions and Japanese supply lines was far less hindered then they thought).

Not to mention the little things like refusing to work together to standardise equipment. Different rifles for the navy, different diameter flares for both services, IIRC.

The Perun video above mentions that when the Red Army caught onto the idea there were Luftwaffe ground troops which weren't very combat effective, they would relentlessly pick on them whenever they could. Which tracks. Sucks for the poor sods who were supposed to be servicing aircraft and instead are humping rifles on the eastern front.

Happened a lot. The US army would at least give people basic training, but when the combat infantry was taking the most casualties, replacements had to be found from rear echelons. Someone who'd spent 2 years as a cook was given a rifle and sent to the front, and commanders wouldn't want to lose their best people by giving them away like that.

Also, German tankers often ended up infantry due to lack of functional tanks. Those examples aren't as extreme though.

 

[Dalisclock]

Getting a bit off-topic, but in of itself that's not that unusual. The RAF had their own ground forces, the RAF Regiment, founded during WW2 and existing to this day. Though it's there to take and defend airbases after the British lost some. Why they don't use the army for that I don't know. The modern Australian military has Air Defence Guards who are part of the RAAF, but more armed security guard than infantry soldier.

Also, in WW1, the British navy had substantial ground forces, because lots of volunteers for the military wanted to be navy, but they needed more army, so they sorta fudged it.

Not quite the same thing but the US Navy(USN) and US Marine Corps(USMC) are kinda like this.

Basically the USN and the USMC are both part of the Department of the Navy despite being different branches and having their own independent command structures. The Navy is run by the Chief of Naval Operations while the Marines are run by the Commandant of the Marine Corps but both report to the Civilian Secretary of the Navy(and then to the Secretary of Defense and so on). And it's interesting because the USN has ships and aircraft, the Marines have tanks and aircraft and troops and while they work together(Marines are deployed from Naval ships and are sometimes assigned to Navy ships) and there's some overlap in aircraft(Both use F-18's and F-35's), they also have exclusive force structures. Then again, I think a bunch of the logistics are similar and both branches use a lot of the same lingo(AKA the Marines are the only other branch that can decipher "Navy speak").

The USMC is basically combat troops, tankers and an air wing or two, while the USN provides a lot of the support functions for the USMC as well as having their own Air Wings as well as Ships(I was on a carrier where we had USMC and USN air wings attached and their associated support personnel together, which was interesting to see so many marines hanging around on a Carrier which normally doesn't have Marines). Famously, the USMC doesn't have their own medics, but rather USN Corpsmen(AKA Medics) are often assigned as part of marine units while not actually being marines(They do have to go through Marine training if they're part of marine units though).

Or maybe that's not a good example because since they tend to complement each other. Maybe the difference between the US Army and the USMC would make more sense here, or the fact that the USN, USMC and USAF all have fixed wing combat aircraft, but not the US Army(and even better, they generally have different types).

 

[Ag3ma]

The Perun video above mentions that when the Red Army caught onto the idea there were Luftwaffe ground troops which weren't very combat effective, they would relentlessly pick on them whenever they could. Which tracks. Sucks for the poor sods who were supposed to be servicing aircraft and instead are humping rifles on the eastern front.

Oh heavens yes.

If the AA guns were overrun, lost, needed repair or whatever else, they would just grab all those guys, hand them a gun, and get them to work as infantry - at which they were understandably awful. Did the same with a load of naval personnel as well, although they usually got a little more preparation and training because they didn't happen to be lying around in a land combat zone at the wrong moment. In the end, I think there were two whole divisions of Luftwaffe extras they just turned into infantry, although by that time they were handing rifles and panzerfausts to 14-year-olds, too.

 

[Eacaraxe]

This makes the assumption that spokespeople for the White House and DoD were telling the absolute, God's honest truth. I have noticed that you do not generally put a great deal of faith in their honesty, so there's no particular reason you should do so now. I don't trust them to be completely transparent either. And indeed, there's a fair chance they said it because it was a convenient thing to say to cover up their real reason.

Of course, if the USA and EU want, they can not just give Ukraine Western tanks, but also additional logisitcal capability to help use Western tanks.

Both can be true. I put zero faith in the word of the US government, however the logistics associated with Abrams deployments is a point that has 32 years' evidence, especially when it comes to other countries' shenanigans with the damn things. I'm not going to overlook that breadth of evidence because oligarchic financial interest dictates US foreign policy.

As I alluded to earlier, I suspect Zelenskyy getting his own house in order with regards to corruption and embezzlement, was a precondition for the agreement: that the change in policy occurred a day after the arrests and resignations took place is no coincidence. It's also the origin of my "be careful what you wish for" -- some of those people who just got sacked and/or arrested just might have political ties to Ukrainian neofascist paramilitaries, who are unlikely to take kindly to the action.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Getting a bit off-topic, but in of itself that's not that unusual. The RAF had their own ground forces, the RAF Regiment, founded during WW2 and existing to this day. Though it's there to take and defend airbases after the British lost some. Why they don't use the army for that I don't know. The modern Australian military has Air Defence Guards who are part of the RAAF, but more armed security guard than infantry soldier.

The Aggies (ADG) are trained and equipped as light infantry and are completely capable of performing the duties you'd expect from other light infantry formations it's just that their primary purpose is the security and defense of RAAF facilities.


As for the why, it's actually a lot more reasoned than petty empire building. Basically the Air Force doesn't want to have to rely on the Army for defending airbases and such because they may have wildly differing priorities when it comes to warfare. The Army don't want to have infantry companies pared off around the place playing security guard when they could be off doing more important and violent things. Then there's the usual budgetary and logistic shitwaffles.

One strange-ish thing is back in the early 90s infantry NCOs could get transfers into the Aggies easier than any other sort of transfer. Certainly helped the RAAF expand the Aggies but not sure what the Army got out of it by letting them go so easily... possibly a few logjams-at-rank where they had way more people qualified for promotions and positiions than slots available.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Or maybe that's not a good example because since they tend to complement each other. Maybe the difference between the US Army and the USMC would make more sense here, or the fact that the USN, USMC and USAF all have fixed wing combat aircraft, but not the US Army(and even better, they generally have different types).

Ah yes, the USMC Air Corps... or as some call it The Navy's Army's Air Force.

 

[Dalisclock]

Ah yes, the USMC Air Corps... or as some call it The Navy's Army's Air Force.

Just don't call them "Naval Infantry". I'm told they do not approve of it.

I mean, I don't care personally. You can call them whatever you want.

 

[Silvanus]

As I alluded to earlier, I suspect Zelenskyy getting his own house in order with regards to corruption and embezzlement, was a precondition for the agreement: that the change in policy occurred a day after the arrests and resignations took place is no coincidence. It's also the origin of my "be careful what you wish for" -- some of those people who just got sacked and/or arrested just might have political ties to Ukrainian neofascist paramilitaries, who are unlikely to take kindly to the action.

Which-- if true-- would mean we could ironically credit the US with more progress in "denazifying" Ukraine than Russia.
Of course, we know that was never even a remote interest of the Russian government, but still.

Anyways. The US frequently attaches anti-corruption requirements to overseas aid (with varying levels of success... and also varying levels of sincerity). This wouldn't be out of the ordinary. All of those who resigned had questionable spending habits that pointed towards bogstandard profiteering. The neo-fascist angle doesn't seem to have any compelling substance to it.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Just don't call them "Naval Infantry". I'm told they do not approve of it.

I mean, I don't care personally. You can call them whatever you want.

I call them Fusiliers-Marins in an outrageous fake French accent then twirl my moustache.

 

[Dalisclock]

Back on topic, the US is apparently sending M1A2 Abrams tanks.

US will send Ukraine more modern version of Abrams tank

The United States plans to send its more updated version of the M1 Abrams tank to Ukraine, a vehicle that is considered deadlier and has more upgrades than its predecessor but takes longer to trans…

thehill.com

For those of us here who aren't tank/military nerds, that's the most advanced production type of this particular tank(M1 being the base model from the 1980's, A1 and A2 being major upgrade packages over the last few decades). So Ukraine is apparently getting the 2000's/2010's model, not the 1980's model.

There's a bunch of variants within that M1A2 but without more specific information it's hard to tell. Probably this will be a special M1A2U variant, because certain nations are offered special varients based on national security concerns and such. Arguably a pretty good deal considering and I'm sure has nothing to do with gathering up to date combat data on the M1A2 version vs. Russian tanks for the next generation of Abrams tanks(currently known as AbramsX).

M1 Abrams - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Gergar12]

Back on topic, the US is apparently sending M1A2 Abrams tanks.

US will send Ukraine more modern version of Abrams tank

The United States plans to send its more updated version of the M1 Abrams tank to Ukraine, a vehicle that is considered deadlier and has more upgrades than its predecessor but takes longer to trans…

thehill.com

For those of us here who aren't tank/military nerds, that's the most advanced production type of this particular tank(M1 being the base model from the 1980's, A1 and A2 being major upgrade packages over the last few decades). So Ukraine is apparently getting the 2000's/2010's model, not the 1980's model.

There's a bunch of variants within that M1A2 but without more specific information it's hard to tell. Probably this will be a special M1A2U variant, because certain nations are offered special varients based on national security concerns and such. Arguably a pretty good deal considering and I'm sure has nothing to do with gathering up to date combat data on the M1A2 version vs. Russian tanks for the next generation of Abrams tanks(currently known as AbramsX).

M1 Abrams - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I feel like they won't send Abrams with the advanced composite armor.

 

[Dalisclock]

I feel like they won't send Abrams with the advanced composite armor.

I think some of that is being specifically removed to avoid it getting captured. I read something to that effect anyway

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Arguably a pretty good deal considering and I'm sure has nothing to do with gathering up to date combat data on the M1A2 version vs. Russian tanks for the next generation of Abrams tanks(currently known as AbramsX).

The Ukrainians have been pretty open about being willing to serve as a combat testbed for any kit that catches their eyes. They've even been willing to take kit that still has serious design flaws (ie, the ADF's Hawkei and it's issue with its front brakes... although from Ukrainians I've known over the years this would be seen as a plus because 'brakes only slow you down'.)

 

[Dalisclock]

The Ukrainians have been pretty open about being willing to serve as a combat testbed for any kit that catches their eyes. They've even been willing to take kit that still has serious design flaws (ie, the ADF's Hawkei and it's issue with its front brakes... although from Ukrainians I've known over the years this would be seen as a plus because 'brakes only slow you down'.)

I've heard jokes that go along the lines of "Ukrainians are Slavs, and Slavs, given enough reason, duct tape and scrap metal, will build a tank out of a yugo and somehow make it work". Notably from people who also claim to be Slavic.

And I guess I have to take their word for it because I don't really know any people who are Slavic or eastern European.

 

[Gordon_4]

Just don't call them "Naval Infantry". I'm told they do not approve of it.

I mean, I don't care personally. You can call them whatever you want.

I've heard it said that Marine is in fact an acronym for "My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment, Sir" Is there any truth to that?

 

[Seanchaidh]