Europe under extreme duress

[Max the Mad Russian]

Just curious, what makes the Leo 2 superior to the Abrams for Russian tanks?

Diesel engine's fuel consumption rate and, probably more important, uptime

 

[Random8145]

I have read that “Паляниця” is a Ukrainian word that means a loaf of bread and apparently Russians can't pronounce it at all, so the Ukrainians are using it to identify Russian spies, saboteurs, etc...among them.

Diesel engine's fuel consumption rate and, probably more important, uptime

Well with the Abrams tanks it would depend on the length of the supply lines they had (which probably wouldn't be very long) and they'd be fighting defensively. Both diesels and gas turbines have their benefits and drawbacks for tanks.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

I have read that “Паляниця” is a Ukrainian word that means a loaf of bread and apparently Russians can't pronounce it at all, so the Ukrainians are using it to identify Russian spies, saboteurs, etc...among them

That's because Ukranian "И" in the center of this word sounds as "Ы" in Russian, a different pronunciations of [i:] among Cyrillic languages, (like in "leap" and "win" in English) let alone quite different articulations.
And this is indeed yummy when covered with chunk of bacon. BurgerKing should know that

Both diesels and gas turbines have their benefits and drawbacks for tanks.

This is definitely a legend that Chechen wars left to discuss but there is strong (even being confirmed to be false, still strong) opinion that in urban environment the turbine tanks are too "hot" from behind and infantry cannot keep close enough to them, so there is the gap trained machinegunner from some building may always use to separate the two so RPG men will be able to hit the tank freely and left infantry alone. They say diesel tank is better since it's just cooler from its rear. But in reality of former Soviet countries, with a lot of swamps and forests, I'm afraid just any logistic tail would be in troubles trying to stay connected to its armoured head. So the more fuel efficient and the more reliable is the tank itself, the better.

 

[Random8145]

That's because Ukranian "И" in the center of this word sounds as "Ы" in Russian, a different pronunciations of [i:] among Cyrillic languages, (like in "leap" and "win" in English) let alone quite different articulations.
And this is indeed yummy when covered with chunk of bacon. BurgerKing should know that



This is definitely a legend that Chechen wars left to discuss but there is strong (even being confirmed to be false, still strong) opinion that in urban environment the turbine tanks are too "hot" from behind and infantry cannot keep close enough to them, so there is the gap trained machinegunner from some building may always use to separate the two so RPG men will be able to hit the tank freely and left infantry alone. They say diesel tank is better since it's just cooler from its rear. But in reality of former Soviet countries, with a lot of swamps and forests, I'm afraid just any logistic tail would be in troubles trying to stay connected to its armoured head. So the more fuel efficient and the more reliable is the tank itself, the better.

Yes, if advancing, more fuel hungry tanks might be problematic in Eastern European terrain if advancing into the enemy because you are lengthening the supply line, and even then that probably would depend some on the climate as well (solid ground in the summer versus Rasputitsa and then super cold winter then swampy spring), but if just fighting defensively to keep a Russian offensive out, there would likely be pretty ample supply lines built up behind the Western tank forces that they could fall back on if having to.

As for fighting in urban environments, I know the U.S. did some urban fighting with tanks in Iraq and were pretty successful, so maybe with Abrams tanks the heat issue isn't as bad. Don't know for sure though.

 

[Griz882]

Diesel engine's fuel consumption rate and, probably more important, uptime

I’m not sure what you are getting at here, but the M1 utilizes multifuel–capable engine that can roll on diesel, kerosene, any grade of motor gasoline and jet fuel. The thing can pretty much run on everything but coal, water, and cow’s milk!

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

any grade of motor gasoline and jet fuel.


Forgot eau de cologne. Yeah, perfume too
MTU diesel can drink that all, either

 

[Random8145]

I’m not sure what you are getting at here, but the M1 utilizes multifuel–capable engine that can roll on diesel, kerosene, any grade of motor gasoline and jet fuel. The thing can pretty much run on everything but coal, water, and cow’s milk!

He means because the M1 uses a gas-turbine engine, and those are fuel hogs. They don't idle like a diesel can, which can sip fuel while doing so. So a gas turbine running on diesel will still burn it far more quickly than a diesel will.

 

[Griz882]

I see…based on the Leopard 2’s performance in Syria I’d still bet on the M-1 as the go to tank killer for armor on armor.

 

[Mirage]

Putin doesn't think we will launch the missiles regardless of what he does, and he isn't stopping until we convince him that we will. I think that starts with coming to terms with the fact that we may have to.

Should we really launch them, though? I'll be the devil's advocate here.

With our 2 options as I see them being 1. Let Putin invade and play his cards while cutting him and anyone who supports him (ie China) off completely from the rest of the world, and 2. Nuking him as you suggested, let's ask ourselves some questions.

Which option leads to more death and destruction? Which puts the U.S. and our allies in a better position at the end of the day? Which is better for the citizens of the world?

I'd argue that on all accounts, not unleashing nuclear war on Russia (with their likely retaliation destroying us) is the winner. If anything, the war in Ukraine has shown me that Russia does not have the capability of holding any territory they actually take, not in Ukraine and much less if Putin continues to spread himself thinner. Could he take Finland, Ukraine, the Baltics... Maybe for awhile at great cost, but in doing so he would be sealing his fate, exhaust his capabilities, and ruin Russia. He'd get overthrown and all those territories would be free again. Fall of the Soviet Union all over again.

Put another way, arent you glad the Cold War didn't become nuclear at its height and we instead allowed the USSR to exhaust itself and collapse?

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

I see…based on the Leopard 2’s performance in Syria I’d still bet on the M-1 as the go to tank killer for armor on armor.

I'm not saying M-1 is worse than Leo, far from it. And Syria enormously differs: another landscape and environment, it's basically Merkava sits there on that local throne. Also, crews training matters. Having no personal combat expertise you got, it'd be silly from my side to try to convince you that chicken may hunt the hawk. I just share Ukranian tank school opinion (T-55/62+ family is of Ukranian origin from Soviet time; my father was T-55 platoon leader) that diesel on this particular soil is eventually better than turbine, in tank engines' realm.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Fall of the Soviet Union all over again

No, Russian Empire instead. What we see now is the third and hopefully last stage of that empire fall. First one 1917, second one 1991, now the final stage. Empires statistically last about 300 years each. Autumn 1721 Peter the Great first time said the word "Emperor" instead of "Tsar" referring to himself. Now it's time for final breath. Enough.

So don't let America become Empire, since by doing so nation starts kinda final countdown for itself. Ask Brits, they know.

Meanwhile, no one can be sure Russian nuke arsenal does work. Works well what checked well and oiled well, that is what's in constant use. All this is not about Russian nuke forces.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Put another way, arent you glad the Cold War didn't become nuclear at its height and we instead allowed the USSR to exhaust itself and collapse?

There's an opinion that there was sole man who collapsed USSR. Pope John Paul II, ethnic Slavic and simultaneously a Westerner who understood how each world works. According to that opinion, it was to him to provoke the destruction of Warsaw Pact and eventually USSR which was itself a Warsaw Pact in a nutshell, 15 republics with declared but really absend federality: just divide and reign. If so, this approach still works, and the main task is to define the parts. Politically in Russia now these parts would be Putin, FSB, Armed Forces and oligarchy, four is enough to begin with. Armed Forces had been under tied political control since 1825, so-called December Guardians Revolt. Twice in 1937 and 1948 Stalin barely prevented military coups but Marshall George Zhukov, a person in the center of the latter, was the last military man who could say to political authorities "just fuck off", quite literally.
By 2014 Putin, losing his belief and confidence in his own FSB, bet on Army again, essentially inviting the Army - first time since 1825 - to his poker table. But appointed Army leader, Serge Shoigu, has no military career and his contact to true military flag community is quite problematic: they think he is just showman in uniform. I think Gen Gerasimov, Chief of General Staff, while demonstrating loyality, may allow some "young party" secretly grow within Army. Navy has no its own hand in the game, AF too. As usually, Army is the only force with political weight. By pitting FSB against Army or vice versa, someone like that Pope may win.

 

[Random8145]

Should we really launch them, though? I'll be the devil's advocate here.

With our 2 options as I see them being 1. Let Putin invade and play his cards while cutting him and anyone who supports him (ie China) off completely from the rest of the world, and 2. Nuking him as you suggested, let's ask ourselves some questions.

Which option leads to more death and destruction? Which puts the U.S. and our allies in a better position at the end of the day? Which is better for the citizens of the world?

I'd argue that on all accounts, not unleashing nuclear war on Russia (with their likely retaliation destroying us) is the winner. If anything, the war in Ukraine has shown me that Russia does not have the capability of holding any territory they actually take, not in Ukraine and much less if Putin continues to spread himself thinner. Could he take Finland, Ukraine, the Baltics... Maybe for awhile at great cost, but in doing so he would be sealing his fate, exhaust his capabilities, and ruin Russia. He'd get overthrown and all those territories would be free again. Fall of the Soviet Union all over again.

Put another way, arent you glad the Cold War didn't become nuclear at its height and we instead allowed the USSR to exhaust itself and collapse?

IMO, there's more than just two options to stop Putin. There are various other conventional means that can be used to stop him.

 

[Random8145]

There's an opinion that there was sole man who collapsed USSR. Pope John Paul II, ethnic Slavic and simultaneously a Westerner who understood how each world works. According to that opinion, it was to him to provoke the destruction of Warsaw Pact and eventually USSR which was itself a Warsaw Pact in a nutshell, 15 republics with declared but really absend federality: just divide and reign. If so, this approach still works, and the main task is to define the parts. Politically in Russia now these parts would be Putin, FSB, Armed Forces and oligarchy, four is enough to begin with. Armed Forces had been under tied political control since 1825, so-called December Guardians Revolt. Twice in 1937 and 1948 Stalin barely prevented military coups but Marshall George Zhukov, a person in the center of the latter, was the last military man who could say to political authorities "just fuck off", quite literally.
By 2014 Putin, losing his belief and confidence in his own FSB, bet on Army again, essentially inviting the Army - first time since 1825 - to his poker table. But appointed Army leader, Serge Shoigu, has no military career and his contact to true military flag community is quite problematic: they think he is just showman in uniform. I think Gen Gerasimov, Chief of General Staff, while demonstrating loyality, may allow some "young party" secretly grow within Army. Navy has no its own hand in the game, AF too. As usually, Army is the only force with political weight. By pitting FSB against Army or vice versa, someone like that Pope may win.

IMO there are a multitude of factors that brought down the Soviet Union. One was Ronald Reagan with his increasing American defense spending which the Soviets tried to keep up with and couldn't, there was the Soviets having invaded Afghanistan which was costing them a fortune and with no real way to withdraw from without looking weak, there was the U.S. funding the resistance in Afghanistan, there was the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, which made Ukraine and many of the other Soviet states get the courage to really begin standing up to Moscow, Moscow's lies about the dangers of the Chernobyl disaster helped turn many Soviets further away from their government, information from the West leaking in showing what life in the West was really like, Gorbachev's reforms to try and make the Soviet system more "open," which helped set the stage to blow it up because the Soviet system was built on force and oppression, etc...

There were also some major failures in propaganda by the Soviet government, such as for example showing footage of a strike in America to show the evil capitalist oppression of the West. Many Soviets noticed all the workers had jeans on though, which were a major luxury in the Soviet Union, so how oppressed could they be if they can all buy jeans? Then the Soviet government showed people being evicted from their homes in America, to which Soviets were like, "They have their own homes!?"

There was also a hilarious one where a guy in Europe randomly decided to fly his small plane from Europe to Moscow. So he flew straight to Moscow, and the Soviet military never intercepted him. He landed right in front of the Kremlin. He considered landing inside of it, but thought if he did, he'd never come out. This caused a major embarrassment to the Soviets and apparently allowed Gorbachev to fire some high-ranking people in the Soviet military who had been thwarting his plans at things like Glasnost. For all the talk about who or what brought down the Soviet Union, I have wondered for some time if a major player was that guy and his little plane

 

[Griz882]

There was also a hilarious one where a guy in Europe randomly decided to fly his small plane from Europe to Moscow. So he flew straight to Moscow, and the Soviet military never intercepted him. He landed right in front of the Kremlin. He considered landing inside of it, but thought if he did, he'd never come out. This caused a major embarrassment to the Soviets and apparently allowed Gorbachev to fire some high-ranking people in the Soviet military who had been thwarting his plans at things like Glasnost. For all the talk about who or what brought down the Soviet Union, I have wondered for some time if a major player was that guy and his little plane

We shouldn’t be too smug…this fellow got all the way to America’s “first” back yard!