Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 thekingofkings wrote:

vertical envelopement, seize the bridgeheads.

Other than them simply blowing the bridges, and they can, how would that not turn into a debacle like Market: Garden?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

vertical envelopement, seize the bridgeheads.

Other than them simply blowing the bridges, and they can, how would that not turn into a debacle like Market: Garden?

the same way they pushed around the german army in WW2 if thats the example you are using, the Soviets had little trouble pushing the wermacht around seizing crossings. bridgelaying equipement has long been a part of Russian gear, and unlike WW2 they have plenty of airborne troops, and all this also assumes they wont launch amphibious assaults all along the Ukrainian coastline. The Russians hold literally every advantage in conventional warfare here.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
I dont think anyone seriously thinks the Ukrainians could stop an actual Russian invasion, or even appreciably slow it. Giving a clearly overmatched force better weapons encourages it to continue fighting with false hope. They cant win and noone is going to come help them. As the weaker nation, the Ukraine should negotiate directly with Russia and the UN should encourage open talks without the euphemisms or denials.

It depends on if they made good on their statements about restarting their nuclear weapon factories. Remember that the Ukraine made most of Russia's nukes during the cold war, and while they 'disarmed' the infrastructure to produce weapons is still there. Further, while we're quick to dismiss the Ukrainians, I point out that we were quick to dismiss the Vietnamese too. Never underestimate people fighting for their homes.

The problem for Ukraine is that
1. They are right next to Russia, without an ocean to complicate Russian supplies and reinforcements.
2. They do not have jungles to hide in, rather Ukraine is mostly open steppe, the perfect environment for the massed tank and motor rifle divisions that make up the core of the Russian army. They would also be completely open to the Russian air force.
A war between Russia and Ukraine would be over in weeks, a month at most. The Ukrainian army is already suffering from bad discipline and morale, if they are confronted by the overwhelming force the Russian army can bring to bear on them, I think they are quickly going to surrender and switch sides.
The idea that Ukraine can get nukes again is even more ridiculous than them being able to resist a Russian invasion. Even if they had the expertise needed to rebuild their factories and start producing nuclear warheads and missiles, Russia will never let them get that far.
The disparity in military and economic power is simply so huge that there is no hope that Ukraine will ever be anything more than a satellite state of Russia. If they were smart, they would be doing like other regions that broke away from Russia like Belarus and Kazakhstan, and play it on safe instead. It is either that or eventually being re-absorbed as part of Russia.
And that is why a decision by the US to ship weapons is so bad for Ukraine. Those weapons will have no practical effect on the battlefield and they won't make Ukraine able to resist Russia. But they do give the Ukrainian regime the hope that more Western aid will be forthcoming, and that with that aid they might be able to win. And that is why they will continue to fight and refuse to negotiate. And that hope of course is vain because the people in the Kremlin aren't stupid and are never going to let things go that far. So in the end the outcome will be more violence and death, a prolongation of the conflict (even more death), and a greater threat to the existence of Ukraine. All of which is bad, and therefore the US decision to ship weapons is bad and downright stupid. Then again, with someone like Trump in office, I'd hardly expect the US to act smart. Still, it is an evil course of events.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

vertical envelopement, seize the bridgeheads.

Other than them simply blowing the bridges, and they can, how would that not turn into a debacle like Market: Garden?

the same way they pushed around the german army in WW2 if thats the example you are using, the Soviets had little trouble pushing the wermacht around seizing crossings. bridgelaying equipement has long been a part of Russian gear, and unlike WW2 they have plenty of airborne troops, and all this also assumes they wont launch amphibious assaults all along the Ukrainian coastline. The Russians hold literally every advantage in conventional warfare here.

The Russian army is very good in crossing rivers. You have to, when your country has so many huge broad rivers (and only few bridges). It would be stupid not to prepare for war in your own home terrain. Every Russian brigade has dedicated engineer companies with bridgelaying equipment. Furthermore, many of Russia's armoured vehicles are amphibious, and can thus cross rivers even without waiting for the engineers.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
I dont think anyone seriously thinks the Ukrainians could stop an actual Russian invasion, or even appreciably slow it. Giving a clearly overmatched force better weapons encourages it to continue fighting with false hope. They cant win and noone is going to come help them. As the weaker nation, the Ukraine should negotiate directly with Russia and the UN should encourage open talks without the euphemisms or denials.

It depends on if they made good on their statements about restarting their nuclear weapon factories. Remember that the Ukraine made most of Russia's nukes during the cold war, and while they 'disarmed' the infrastructure to produce weapons is still there. Further, while we're quick to dismiss the Ukrainians, I point out that we were quick to dismiss the Vietnamese too. Never underestimate people fighting for their homes.

The problem for Ukraine is that
1. They are right next to Russia, without an ocean to complicate Russian supplies and reinforcements.
2. They do not have jungles to hide in, rather Ukraine is mostly open steppe, the perfect environment for the massed tank and motor rifle divisions that make up the core of the Russian army. They would also be completely open to the Russian air force.
A war between Russia and Ukraine would be over in weeks, a month at most. The Ukrainian army is already suffering from bad discipline and morale, if they are confronted by the overwhelming force the Russian army can bring to bear on them, I think they are quickly going to surrender and switch sides.
The idea that Ukraine can get nukes again is even more ridiculous than them being able to resist a Russian invasion. Even if they had the expertise needed to rebuild their factories and start producing nuclear warheads and missiles, Russia will never let them get that far.
The disparity in military and economic power is simply so huge that there is no hope that Ukraine will ever be anything more than a satellite state of Russia. If they were smart, they would be doing like other regions that broke away from Russia like Belarus and Kazakhstan, and play it on safe instead. It is either that or eventually being re-absorbed as part of Russia.
And that is why a decision by the US to ship weapons is so bad for Ukraine. Those weapons will have no practical effect on the battlefield and they won't make Ukraine able to resist Russia. But they do give the Ukrainian regime the hope that more Western aid will be forthcoming, and that with that aid they might be able to win. And that is why they will continue to fight and refuse to negotiate. And that hope of course is vain because the people in the Kremlin aren't stupid and are never going to let things go that far. So in the end the outcome will be more violence and death, a prolongation of the conflict (even more death), and a greater threat to the existence of Ukraine. All of which is bad, and therefore the US decision to ship weapons is bad and downright stupid. Then again, with someone like Trump in office, I'd hardly expect the US to act smart. Still, it is an evil course of events.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

vertical envelopement, seize the bridgeheads.

Other than them simply blowing the bridges, and they can, how would that not turn into a debacle like Market: Garden?

the same way they pushed around the german army in WW2 if thats the example you are using, the Soviets had little trouble pushing the wermacht around seizing crossings. bridgelaying equipement has long been a part of Russian gear, and unlike WW2 they have plenty of airborne troops, and all this also assumes they wont launch amphibious assaults all along the Ukrainian coastline. The Russians hold literally every advantage in conventional warfare here.

The Russian army is very good in crossing rivers. You have to, when your country has so many huge broad rivers (and only few bridges). It would be stupid not to prepare for war in your own home terrain. Every Russian brigade has dedicated engineer companies with bridgelaying equipment. Furthermore, many of Russia's armoured vehicles are amphibious, and can thus cross rivers even without waiting for the engineers.

Keep in mind that none of this is taking into account that ethnically the vast majority of "Ukrainians" in the area are Russian, speak Russian, and sympathize with Russia. Those bridges could be readily secured by militia loyal to Russia, if not already taken by airborne forces within hours. While the motor rifle division are excellent at crossing rivers, they may not actually have to.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The idea that Ukraine can get nukes again is even more ridiculous than them being able to resist a Russian invasion. Even if they had the expertise needed to rebuild their factories and start producing nuclear warheads and missiles, Russia will never let them get that far.

I'm glad to know that the Russian Army has a Time Brigade then, because they're already that far. You forget that the 43rd Rocket Army used to operate out of the Ukraine? Or that Pivdenmash Machine-Building Plant still produces ICBMs, or that Westinghouse has agreed to send the Ukraine more Uranium?

There's no 'rebuild' to it. They can crank out all the SS-18s in particular they want. What they actually need is more fissile material, which the US is going to provide, apparently.

That sounds like an exceedingly bad plan. Stop spreading nukes, people!

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The idea that Ukraine can get nukes again is even more ridiculous than them being able to resist a Russian invasion. Even if they had the expertise needed to rebuild their factories and start producing nuclear warheads and missiles, Russia will never let them get that far.

I'm glad to know that the Russian Army has a Time Brigade then, because they're already that far. You forget that the 43rd Rocket Army used to operate out of the Ukraine? Or that Pivdenmash Machine-Building Plant still produces ICBMs, or that Westinghouse has agreed to send the Ukraine more Uranium?

There's no 'rebuild' to it. They can crank out all the SS-18s in particular they want. What they actually need is more fissile material, which the US is going to provide, apparently.

Yes, I know those things. However, I also know that Pivdenmash or Yuzhmash never made rockets all on its own. It relied on factories in other parts of the USSR to supply neccesary parts. I also know that Yuzhmash is struggling, has trouble paying its personnel and has had to beg Russia for the parts it needs to continue building rockets, and that the Ukrainian government does not have the money to support it, much less to buy ICBMs. I also know that there are lots of hints that the unprecedented sudden progress of North Korea in missile technology is related to this. I also know that Ukraine has no suitable launch facilities, that every military facility of Ukraine is intimately known to Russia and that every inch of Ukraine is within striking range of Russian aircraft and missiles. Russia could destroy any Ukrainian nuke before it ever reaches a launching pad. The idea of Ukraine as a nuclear power is laughable and exists only in the maniacal power fantasies of ultranationalists.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Yes, I know those things. However, I also know that Pivdenmash or Yuzhmash never made rockets all on its own. It relied on factories in other parts of the USSR to supply neccesary parts.

Canada, now. They have a nice new contract with a US and Canadian space corp.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I also know that Yuzhmash is struggling, has trouble paying its personnel and has had to beg Russia for the parts it needs to continue building rockets,

Not anymore, they bagged the exclusive contract for building Canada's Cyclone-4M.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I also know that Ukraine has no suitable launch facilities, that every military facility of Ukraine is intimately known to Russia and that every inch of Ukraine is within striking range of Russian aircraft and missiles. Russia could destroy any Ukrainian nuke before it ever reaches a launching pad.

We both know they do have older, but hardened, launch facilities outside Pervomaisk

And, not if they have to fly though, say, a hail of US made SAMs.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Yes, I know those things. However, I also know that Pivdenmash or Yuzhmash never made rockets all on its own. It relied on factories in other parts of the USSR to supply neccesary parts.

Canada, now. They have a nice new contract with a US and Canadian space corp.

Hah. Rockets are complicated machines. You can't just swap out a specific part for another. Using Canadian or American parts would mean designing entirely new rockets, which is what they are doing now. It also means it will be years before they are capable of producing anything again, provided their financial situation doesn't deteriorate any further.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I also know that Yuzhmash is struggling, has trouble paying its personnel and has had to beg Russia for the parts it needs to continue building rockets,

Not anymore, they bagged the exclusive contract for building Canada's Cyclone-4M.

Nothing Canadian about that rocket. It is an Ukrainian rocket, a two-stage variant of the Tsyklon rocket that has been in production for years. The contract got them enough money to pay their people a bit again, but they are far from having the funds and capabilities they had before. It remains to be seen whether they are actually still capable of producing rockets now that they have to manufacture all parts on their own.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I also know that Ukraine has no suitable launch facilities, that every military facility of Ukraine is intimately known to Russia and that every inch of Ukraine is within striking range of Russian aircraft and missiles. Russia could destroy any Ukrainian nuke before it ever reaches a launching pad.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
We both know they do have older, but hardened, launch facilities outside Pervomaisk

And, not if they have to fly though, say, a hail of US made SAMs.

Old Soviet stuff that is not in serviceable condition, like 90% of all Ukrainian equipment. The idea that Ukraine could have US SAMs is ridiculous. Firstly Ukraine does not have the money to pay for SAMs, secondly because Ukraine does not need US SAMs (it has its own), thirdly because Ukraine has no people qualified to operate such systems (and training them would cost time and money neither of which Ukraine has) and fourthly because Russia would simply destroy them. The US supplying SAMs to Ukraine would be like Russia supplying SAMs to the Palestinians. How do you think Israel would react? How the hell are you thinking Russia would react any different? And even if Ukraine had a vast and capable arsenal of SAM systems, Russia has plenty of methods of disabling those. Ukraine is a military dwarf, Russia is a military giant. Even if Ukraine had a hundred million times the weapon systems it has now (and Ukraine has a lot of weapon systems already, its practically the graveyard of the Red Army) it simply does not have the military capabilities to make effective use of them.
Baron, what kind of stuff have you been reading, you are lost in fantasy. Please come back to the real world.

c'mon Cap, no need for that last part.
But yeah with complete unchallenged control of the air and sea, Russian troops would not be slowed down by the introduction of weapons that the Ukrainians would not have the doctrine to even use. Its one thing to have high tech weapons, its another to actually use them, also there would not be enough to survive continous tactical airstrikes from su-24, mig -23 or frogfoot, not even needing the larger backfires to get involved. mlrs could smash up air def sites pretty well too.

It's not really a question of whether Russia is able to invade or not, it's a question of what benefit an invasion would provide.

The Crimea operation with accompanying pro-Russian rebel uprisings serves a purpose in securing the important naval facilites on Crimea. Building new harbors and all the necessary support would have taken many years and cost a lot more than doing it this way, not to mention leaving the Russian fleet without a proper base in the Black Sea while waiting for a new base to become operational. This worked at the cost of some sanctions and sacrificing some men and materials (the "volunteers" who drive into the rebel enclaves with their shiny new tanks), and Putin keeps his face straight when he says there's no invasion. Mission accomplished.

Officially conquering Ukraine? It would cost a lot for no benefit. Russia has enough farmland and people comparable to the Ukrainians already, same goes for coal mines, arms factories and so on. Men and materiel would be lost (on both sides) and the Russian liberators would have to blow money they don't have on rebuilding the country if they want the people to be happy with the situation. No gain, all loss even if the war technically would be a victory.

Spetulhu wrote:
It's not really a question of whether Russia is able to invade or not, it's a question of what benefit an invasion would provide.

The Crimea operation with accompanying pro-Russian rebel uprisings serves a purpose in securing the important naval facilites on Crimea. Building new harbors and all the necessary support would have taken many years and cost a lot more than doing it this way, not to mention leaving the Russian fleet without a proper base in the Black Sea while waiting for a new base to become operational. This worked at the cost of some sanctions and sacrificing some men and materials (the "volunteers" who drive into the rebel enclaves with their shiny new tanks), and Putin keeps his face straight when he says there's no invasion. Mission accomplished.

Officially conquering Ukraine? It would cost a lot for no benefit. Russia has enough farmland and people comparable to the Ukrainians already, same goes for coal mines, arms factories and so on. Men and materiel would be lost (on both sides) and the Russian liberators would have to blow money they don't have on rebuilding the country if they want the people to be happy with the situation. No gain, all loss even if the war technically would be a victory.

Exactly. Russia does not need to outright conquer the Ukraine. That would be very costly, Ukraine is poor as dirt even compared to Russia and it would cost a lot to rebuild it up to a Russian standard. Doing that to Crimea already is proving a heavy drain on the Russian treasury. But Russia does need Ukraine as a buffer between it and the West. The Kremlin would be happy to keep Ukraine independent as a satellite state of Russia in the same way Belarus and Kazakhstan are satellite states of Russia, but when Ukraine starts courting the West too much and is about to turn into yet another US military base on Russia's border, then the Kremlin is most certainly going to step in. I don't know what they are planning to do in that scenario, but it is highly likely to involve an invasion and then either a new regime more friendly to Russia or direct incorporation into the Russian Federation. Both these option have distinct pro's and con's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:
c'mon Cap, no need for that last part.

Aw, but I used an Ork smiley. I am sure Baron can take a joke. He is a good person.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Hah. Rockets are complicated machines. You can't just swap out a specific part for another. Using Canadian or American parts would mean designing entirely new rockets, which is what they are doing now. It also means it will be years before they are capable of producing anything again, provided their financial situation doesn't deteriorate any further.

Not when the parts they're producing are for rockets that already exist. As you yourself point out, they're making the Cyclone, which is a SS-18 ICBM without a warhead.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Nothing Canadian about that rocket. It is an Ukrainian rocket, a two-stage variant of the Tsyklon rocket that has been in production for years.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Old Soviet stuff that is not in serviceable condition, like 90% of all Ukrainian equipment. The idea that Ukraine could have US SAMs is ridiculous. Firstly Ukraine does not have the money to pay for SAMs, secondly because Ukraine does not need US SAMs (it has its own), thirdly because Ukraine has no people qualified to operate such systems (and training them would cost time and money neither of which Ukraine has) and fourthly because Russia would simply destroy them.

We also both know that one of the unique charms of 'Old Soviet Stuff' is that you can leave it in the rain for 80 years and still fire it up with a few hours work. Most of it was, after all, built to be used by drooling morons who had never seen anything more high tech than a farm tractor, with a minimum of maintenance. I'd also like to thank, for purposes of this argument, the Pervomaisk museum for keeping the silos in such good condition, as the best place to hide a soviet nuclear missile is in the museum of Soviet Nuclear Missiles.

And who said they had to pay for anything? I mean, seriously, what's the point of setting up front companies to supply arms via something as crazy as a Canadian space launch company to funnel money and equipment and Uranium, of all bloody things, if you're going to charge them for it up front?

Besides, Trump is so happy to get rid of yet another of what he sees as Obama's achievements I'm surprised he's not sending mobile launchers and complete warheads.

I doubt we'll ever see a full-on invasion by Russia for a number of reasons. One, the cost is going to be tremendously high. Ukraine was fully unprepared for confrontation when Russia took Crimea, and was in no position to defend itself from incursions in the east. While there is no doubt that full military might would probably take Russia right to Kiev, the whole world would see it coming because they would have to mobilize a lot of resources to do that, and Ukraine's military is starting to stand on its own two feet. And don't think the initial sanctions applied to Russia aren't still having an effect. Putin is in the news just about everyday asking them to be lifted. An full invasion would make things a lot worse for Russia financially. And then what? Ukrainians aren't going to just give up. There will be fighting for years within Ukraine between rebels and occupying forces.

The best Russia can do is to keep doing what they are doing now, unless a war between the US and Korea breaks out. If the US is occupied with South East Asia, I wouldn't be surprised to see Russia cause all sorts of issues in Ukraine and the Baltics. On the flip side, this is actually going to help Ukraine too. They may never get the East back, but they probably wont lose much else.

I personally love that the javelins are being sent over, and feel they should have been sent a long time ago. The only way to get Russia to back out is to bleed them out, even if its a slow drain.

KTG17 wrote:
I doubt we'll ever see a full-on invasion by Russia for a number of reasons. One, the cost is going to be tremendously high. Ukraine was fully unprepared for confrontation when Russia took Crimea, and was in no position to defend itself from incursions in the east. While there is no doubt that full military might would probably take Russia right to Kiev, the whole world would see it coming because they would have to mobilize a lot of resources to do that, and Ukraine's military is starting to stand on its own two feet. And don't think the initial sanctions applied to Russia aren't still having an effect. Putin is in the news just about everyday asking them to be lifted. An full invasion would make things a lot worse for Russia financially. And then what? Ukrainians aren't going to just give up. There will be fighting for years within Ukraine between rebels and occupying forces.

The best Russia can do is to keep doing what they are doing now, unless a war between the US and Korea breaks out. If the US is occupied with South East Asia, I wouldn't be surprised to see Russia cause all sorts of issues in Ukraine and the Baltics. On the flip side, this is actually going to help Ukraine too. They may never get the East back, but they probably wont lose much else.

I personally love that the javelins are being sent over, and feel they should have been sent a long time ago. The only way to get Russia to back out is to bleed them out, even if its a slow drain.

And that is even assuming that no one else becomes involved, which I find highly unlikely.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Hah. Rockets are complicated machines. You can't just swap out a specific part for another. Using Canadian or American parts would mean designing entirely new rockets, which is what they are doing now. It also means it will be years before they are capable of producing anything again, provided their financial situation doesn't deteriorate any further.

Not when the parts they're producing are for rockets that already exist. As you yourself point out, they're making the Cyclone, which is a SS-18 ICBM without a warhead.

They are not making the Cyclone. They are designing the Cyclone. The rocket has yet to be built and tested.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Nothing Canadian about that rocket. It is an Ukrainian rocket, a two-stage variant of the Tsyklon rocket that has been in production for years.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Old Soviet stuff that is not in serviceable condition, like 90% of all Ukrainian equipment. The idea that Ukraine could have US SAMs is ridiculous. Firstly Ukraine does not have the money to pay for SAMs, secondly because Ukraine does not need US SAMs (it has its own), thirdly because Ukraine has no people qualified to operate such systems (and training them would cost time and money neither of which Ukraine has) and fourthly because Russia would simply destroy them.

We also both know that one of the unique charms of 'Old Soviet Stuff' is that you can leave it in the rain for 80 years and still fire it up with a few hours work. Most of it was, after all, built to be used by drooling morons who had never seen anything more high tech than a farm tractor, with a minimum of maintenance. I'd also like to thank, for purposes of this argument, the Pervomaisk museum for keeping the silos in such good condition, as the best place to hide a soviet nuclear missile is in the museum of Soviet Nuclear Missiles.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And I would argue that a silo with all of its mechanisms removed or filled with concrete is not in very good condition. Well, maybe for a museum, it is in good enough condition to impress visiting kids, but not in good enough condition to launch missiles.

Most of the mechanisms in Ukrainian silos are actually largely intact, and most of them are not full of concrete, as that would have been too expensive. Equipment was removed, but the only way to permanently disable a silo is to blast it shut, and that was not done.

I'll also point out that a fair number of mobile launchers are available for sale on the international market. If I can buy one, I believe that the Ukrainian government can too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Weapons cost money. Missiles cost a huge lot of money.

This depends on the missile, the buyer, and the seller. And the price of such things also fluctuates with the national interests of the countries involved. The EU figures that an independent Ukraine is in their interests, they might float weapons on a Lend-Lease type scheme. the US wants to support the Ukraine, they smuggle in goods and or give them surplus US weapons. Cash changes hands, but it's not nearly as much as you might think. When we were smuggling US weapons into Bosnia, they were selling tanks for $1,000 US.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And I would argue that a silo with all of its mechanisms removed or filled with concrete is not in very good condition. Well, maybe for a museum, it is in good enough condition to impress visiting kids, but not in good enough condition to launch missiles.

Most of the mechanisms in Ukrainian silos are actually largely intact, and most of them are not full of concrete, as that would have been too expensive. Equipment was removed, but the only way to permanently disable a silo is to blast it shut, and that was not done.

I'll also point out that a fair number of mobile launchers are available for sale on the international market. If I can buy one, I believe that the Ukrainian government can too.

They are not. They have been very thoroughly disabled by international teams as stipulated in international treaties after the Cold War.
And you can not buy a mobile launcher that easily. Trust me, I know how that business. The Ukrainian government of course, could buy one. They could do so on the black market or on the open market, but in both cases they'd need money. And as you might be aware, they do not have that kind of money. The Ukrainian army needs loads of things much more than it needs mobile missile launchers. Those are not really a priority for them. And even if it was, they'd probably be repairing the many launch units that are rusting away in the many Soviet depots across Ukraine. Again, equipment is not really what the Ukrainian army lacks. It is trained and skilled soldiers, and the money to properly train, feed and pay them. The Ukrainian army would need to be many many times the size of what it is now if it wants to stand any chance of defending Ukraine.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Weapons cost money. Missiles cost a huge lot of money.

This depends on the missile, the buyer, and the seller. And the price of such things also fluctuates with the national interests of the countries involved. The EU figures that an independent Ukraine is in their interests, they might float weapons on a Lend-Lease type scheme. the US wants to support the Ukraine, they smuggle in goods and or give them surplus US weapons. Cash changes hands, but it's not nearly as much as you might think. When we were smuggling US weapons into Bosnia, they were selling tanks for $1,000 US.

What you are suggesting would be outside of normal transactions. It would be direct aid which would mean (proxy) war. Nobody in the EU is so stupid to even consider that, and even in the US I don't think the folks at the Pentagon are stupid enough to do something like that. You know, not unless they suddenly want to fight a Taliban equipped with high-tech weapons that suddenly mysteriously appeared, or find that the Syrian army suddenly got a very strong anti-air branch. Russia can hurt the US as much as the US can hurt Russia, and it can hurt the EU far more. They won't escalate. Actions like you are proposing will only lead to Ukraine being invaded, the EU losing a valuable partner and the US fighting a dangerous and needless proxy war with one of the only two powers in the world that can match them tit for tat. That is why any serious aid for Ukraine is not going to be happening. It is in no one's interests.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And I would argue that a silo with all of its mechanisms removed or filled with concrete is not in very good condition. Well, maybe for a museum, it is in good enough condition to impress visiting kids, but not in good enough condition to launch missiles.

Most of the mechanisms in Ukrainian silos are actually largely intact, and most of them are not full of concrete, as that would have been too expensive. Equipment was removed, but the only way to permanently disable a silo is to blast it shut, and that was not done.

I'll also point out that a fair number of mobile launchers are available for sale on the international market. If I can buy one, I believe that the Ukrainian government can too.

They are not. They have been very thoroughly disabled by international teams as stipulated in international treaties after the Cold War.
And you can not buy a mobile launcher that easily. Trust me, I know how that business. The Ukrainian government of course, could buy one. They could do so on the black market or on the open market, but in both cases they'd need money. And as you might be aware, they do not have that kind of money. The Ukrainian army needs loads of things much more than it needs mobile missile launchers. Those are not really a priority for them. And even if it was, they'd probably be repairing the many launch units that are rusting away in the many Soviet depots across Ukraine. Again, equipment is not really what the Ukrainian army lacks. It is trained and skilled soldiers, and the money to properly train, feed and pay them. The Ukrainian army would need to be many many times the size of what it is now if it wants to stand any chance of defending Ukraine.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Weapons cost money. Missiles cost a huge lot of money.

This depends on the missile, the buyer, and the seller. And the price of such things also fluctuates with the national interests of the countries involved. The EU figures that an independent Ukraine is in their interests, they might float weapons on a Lend-Lease type scheme. the US wants to support the Ukraine, they smuggle in goods and or give them surplus US weapons. Cash changes hands, but it's not nearly as much as you might think. When we were smuggling US weapons into Bosnia, they were selling tanks for $1,000 US.

What you are suggesting would be outside of normal transactions. It would be direct aid which would mean (proxy) war. Nobody in the EU is so stupid to even consider that, and even in the US I don't think the folks at the Pentagon are stupid enough to do something like that. You know, not unless they suddenly want to fight a Taliban equipped with high-tech weapons that suddenly mysteriously appeared, or find that the Syrian army suddenly got a very strong anti-air branch. Russia can hurt the US as much as the US can hurt Russia, and it can hurt the EU far more. They won't escalate. Actions like you are proposing will only lead to Ukraine being invaded, the EU losing a valuable partner and the US fighting a dangerous and needless proxy war with one of the only two powers in the world that can match them tit for tat. That is why any serious aid for Ukraine is not going to be happening. It is in no one's interests.

realistically the world is a better and safer place when the US and Russia see eye to eye.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And you can not buy a mobile launcher that easily. Trust me, I know how that business.

So do I. Two phone calls and $100k, and a live SCUD-D and it's TEL will be delivered to my door. Which I grant would look pretty weird and block part of the street, but my point stands. (Comer on, Cap, you know that I know that I can get things like T72s at $60k each from the Czechs, is it so hard to believe that I can get a mobile launcher? With all the exported and local knock offs there are anymore?)

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And you can not buy a mobile launcher that easily. Trust me, I know how that business.

So do I. Two phone calls and $100k, and a live SCUD-D and it's TEL will be delivered to my door. Which I grant would look pretty weird and block part of the street, but my point stands. (Comer on, Cap, you know that I know that I can get things like T72s at $60k each from the Czechs, is it so hard to believe that I can get a mobile launcher? With all the exported and local knock offs there are anymore?)

I think you would be a bad neighbor collecting tanks in your yard and driveway

 thekingofkings wrote:

I think you would be a bad neighbor collecting tanks in your yard and driveway

Actually I generally don't keep tanks at my house, I have a facility for that. There was a time that the local gang bangers thought they were hot gak and strafed my house. I parked my AMX 13 in the driveway for a few days s and I think they got the hint.

And the TEL is a wheeled vehicle, not a tracked one, so it's more like a very big truck.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

I think you would be a bad neighbor collecting tanks in your yard and driveway

Actually I generally don't keep tanks at my house, I have a facility for that. There was a time that the local gang bangers thought they were hot gak and strafed my house. I parked my AMX 13 in the driveway for a few days s and I think they got the hint.

And the TEL is a wheeled vehicle, not a tracked one, so it's more like a very big truck.

Pics or it didn't happen.

The Ukrainians don't need to buy launch platforms. They have enough salvageable bits sitting in their scrapyards to make a brand new one out of all the wrecks.

I'm sure some Ukrainian business men can wrangle a few soldiers to go across the border, give a nice bottle of vodka to a general or whatever and come back with all the military hardware they want. At least it was the same, but the other way around for every arms dealer and their cousin a decade ago in the former USSR (and if what the Kremlin's saying is true, thousands of soldiers can just drive off one day without repercussions with the same gear... "Just promise you'll give it back when you're done volunteering. Have fun!").

 djones520 wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

I think you would be a bad neighbor collecting tanks in your yard and driveway

Actually I generally don't keep tanks at my house, I have a facility for that. There was a time that the local gang bangers thought they were hot gak and strafed my house. I parked my AMX 13 in the driveway for a few days s and I think they got the hint.

And the TEL is a wheeled vehicle, not a tracked one, so it's more like a very big truck.

Pics or it didn't happen.

I am calling his HOA on that, there has to be some kind of rule against ICBMs and having personal SAMS.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And you can not buy a mobile launcher that easily. Trust me, I know how that business.

So do I. Two phone calls and $100k, and a live SCUD-D and it's TEL will be delivered to my door. Which I grant would look pretty weird and block part of the street, but my point stands. (Comer on, Cap, you know that I know that I can get things like T72s at $60k each from the Czechs, is it so hard to believe that I can get a mobile launcher? With all the exported and local knock offs there are anymore?)

No, you can't just do that. I mean, technically you could, but it would not get you your vehicle but rather a nice trip to prison. If you are aware of this trade, then so are the secret services. To buy heavy weapon systems you need to be a bit more discreet about it.
But yes, if you are a government (or another organisation that does not have to fear being arrested for it), it is very easy to purchase weapon systems this way.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

I think you would be a bad neighbor collecting tanks in your yard and driveway

Actually I generally don't keep tanks at my house, I have a facility for that. There was a time that the local gang bangers thought they were hot gak and strafed my house. I parked my AMX 13 in the driveway for a few days s and I think they got the hint.

And the TEL is a wheeled vehicle, not a tracked one, so it's more like a very big truck.

Pics or it didn't happen.

I am calling his HOA on that, there has to be some kind of rule against ICBMs and having personal SAMS.

Yes, and those rules and the trouble of getting one in and hiding it undetected is about the only reason we don't see the likes of criminal gangs fighting each other with tanks and missiles. The fall of the Soviet Union made hundreds of thousands of weapon systems obsolete across the former Warsaw Pact, and coupled with the fact that there were suddenly thousands of officers and commanders in control of these things who found themselves without job or income and well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that much of the Red Army's former power is available quite cheaply on the black market. The illegal arms trade is surprisingly out in the open, it is really easy to find (it was much worse in the 90's though). It is only the efforts of intelligence services and police organisations that stop every random nobody with money from purchasing his personal, fully functional T-72 complete with ammo and spare parts. So mostly the customers are shady governments and rebel organisations like the PKK, IRA, ETA, FARC etc. For small arms there is of course a wider demand, because those are easier to hide. I have trouble believing Baron would have a functional AMX-13. Not only because French equipment is a lot more rare (and therefore expensive) than Warsaw Pact stuff, but also because someone would probably have called the police if they saw a tank parked in someone's driveway. Cool story tho.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
The Ukrainians don't need to buy launch platforms. They have enough salvageable bits sitting in their scrapyards to make a brand new one out of all the wrecks.

I'm sure some Ukrainian business men can wrangle a few soldiers to go across the border, give a nice bottle of vodka to a general or whatever and come back with all the military hardware they want. At least it was the same, but the other way around for every arms dealer and their cousin a decade ago in the former USSR (and if what the Kremlin's saying is true, thousands of soldiers can just drive off one day without repercussions with the same gear... "Just promise you'll give it back when you're done volunteering. Have fun!").

Pretty much yes. The Ukrainians can get anything except the latest, most high tech stuff that way.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

No, you can't just do that. I mean, technically you could, but it would not get you your vehicle but rather a nice trip to prison. If you are aware of this trade, then so are the secret services. To buy heavy weapon systems you need to be a bit more discreet about it.
But yes, if you are a government (or another organization that does not have to fear being arrested for it), it is very easy to purchase weapon systems this way.

Not really, as long as my import and destructive device permits are good, and the engine is shipped separately, I can legally own a live Scud-D in the US. In fact, since the US government amended the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, in theory, as long as I have all the proper paperwork, I could even buy and sell nuclear materials (though I grant that such permits can run into the thousands of pages, and there are some dangerous materials handling laws that would need to be observed). People seem to think that certain things are automatically illegal to own, but in reality, as long as you have the right papers (and in the case of live tanks inform the BATF if you cross state lines) you can own a surprising list of things for a $200 tax stamp. In Seneca territory, you don't even need that. We have very few weapons laws there as we're not legally subject to US law (though having a nuke there might be unpopular for obvious reasons).

Now, on the flip side, if I launch a thermonuclear weapon at a target inside the US, that's an entire 'nother kettle of fish, legally. Point of fact, if I were to drive a TEL down the street, and someone wrecks into me and is injured, I can be facing a life sentence due to their actions. Because US law.

Point of fact you and I have had this discussion before cap. Once more, not everyplace is Europe where you have to drill two foot holes in the tank to make it legal.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

No, you can't just do that. I mean, technically you could, but it would not get you your vehicle but rather a nice trip to prison. If you are aware of this trade, then so are the secret services. To buy heavy weapon systems you need to be a bit more discreet about it.
But yes, if you are a government (or another organization that does not have to fear being arrested for it), it is very easy to purchase weapon systems this way.

Not really, as long as my import and destructive device permits are good, and the engine is shipped separately, I can legally own a live Scud-D in the US. In fact, since the US government amended the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, in theory, as long as I have all the proper paperwork, I could even buy and sell nuclear materials (though I grant that such permits can run into the thousands of pages, and there are some dangerous materials handling laws that would need to be observed). People seem to think that certain things are automatically illegal to own, but in reality, as long as you have the right papers (and in the case of live tanks inform the BATF if you cross state lines) you can own a surprising list of things for a $200 tax stamp. In Seneca territory, you don't even need that. We have very few weapons laws there as we're not legally subject to US law (though having a nuke there might be unpopular for obvious reasons).

Now, on the flip side, if I launch a thermonuclear weapon at a target inside the US, that's an entire 'nother kettle of fish, legally. Point of fact, if I were to drive a TEL down the street, and someone wrecks into me and is injured, I can be facing a life sentence due to their actions. Because US law.
Point of fact you and I have had this discussion before cap. Once more, not everyplace is Europe where you have to drill two foot holes in the tank to make it legal.

Maybe we did, but I must have forgotten. Or maybe I just find it hard to believe that weapon laws in the US are that crazy. I guess I am just too European
So you can really legally own a fully functioning tank in the US? Totally cool! How hard is it to immigrate to the US?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
How hard is it to immigrate to the US?

Before, or after, they put Trump in a strait jacket?

ATM pretty hard.

Basically it's the same paperwork for a tank as it is for a silencer, automatic weapon, sawed off shotgun, or any heavy weapon like a howitzer or a flame thrower. File your forms, pay the $200 for the tax stamp and obey local ordinances. BATF also likes ot know if and when your tank crosses state lines.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
How hard is it to immigrate to the US?

Before, or after, they put Trump in a strait jacket?

ATM pretty hard.

Basically it's the same paperwork for a tank as it is for a silencer, automatic weapon, sawed off shotgun, or any heavy weapon like a howitzer or a flame thrower. File your forms, pay the $200 for the tax stamp and obey local ordinances. BATF also likes ot know if and when your tank crosses state lines.

I think that only applies if the tank has working weaponry. If the tank's weaponry is all rendered inert I don't think there is any special licenses required in the US to have the actual tank. You'll probably need a special class Driver's License to drive it on the street, but not to own it specifically.

The weaponry itself would be registered as either a Class IV Destructive Device or Automatic Weapons as appropriate. Each round of main gun ammo is also individually considered a Class IV Destructive Device in addition to the gun.

Of course, if you can track one down/afford to buy a tank you might as well go through the extra hassle of having functional weaponry