Ukraine: Russian Invasion

[duckduck]

Bottom line, I'd really like to see clear statements that training and everything else is part of the packages and that as much resources as possible are aligned to that effort from the supplying countries. So far I cant say I have, but maybe I'm wrong?

I think that training is happening, it is just too 'dull' for newspapers to devote too much space to. 'Country X gives Ukraine 100 Y' is a decent headline. 'Country X gives Ukraine 100 Y, plus training, plus ammo, plus parts, plus other consumables, plus ...' isn't. The donor countries want the equipment to be effective and their militaries understand that kit without training and other stuff is useless. Here are a couple of articles on training I could dig up in two minutes from just one newspaper:

Ukrainian soldiers arrive in UK for training: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...british-forces
Ukrainian troops to start training on Patriot missiles in the US: https://www.theguardian.com/world/li...085fda3e65bf1b

[Candy Crush]

So how are the Ukraine's trained on so many DIFFERENT vehicles and weapon systems from a dozen different countries? They aren't part of NATO and do not think they have much experience with these vehicles and systems, no way they are operating them without NATO operators walking them through basics.... just the logistics of maintenance will halve half of these inoperable within a week even if they survive.
I believe Ukrainians barely have capacity to repair even Soviet/Russian captured vehicles, so those are usually transferred to Eastern Europe for repairs.
It is logistical nightmare already, so 5 more systems won't do much good (I mean Bradley/Marder/AMX-10s/Challengers/Leos).
And what they can do with 10 Leos and 12 Challengers? Frankly, between KMW's stocks and those of a dozen or so allies, 150 or so used LEO 2A4 tanks should have been pooled together and repaired months ago. Even now, KMW and Rheinmetall could standardize them in a Leo 2A4U get them up and prepare for Summer 2023. Those not in good condition could be used to source parts. Any allies not able to send tanks could at least donate funds to restore the Leo 2A4s. Aim for a goal of 120 tanks.

[Lief Siddhe]

Candy Crush in a rare display of common sense and a question with a point, everybody. I'm actually pleasantly surprised.

The answer: at this point Ukraine is not in NATO just officially. A huge part of their organization and logistics is run by NATO countries.

[Sacul]

So how are the Ukraine's trained on so many DIFFERENT vehicles and weapon systems from a dozen different countries? They aren't part of NATO and do not think they have much experience with these vehicles and systems, no way they are operating them without NATO operators walking them through basics.... just the logistics of maintenance will halve half of these inoperable within a week even if they survive.
I believe Ukrainians barely have capacity to repair even Soviet/Russian captured vehicles, so those are usually transferred to Eastern Europe for repairs.
It is logistical nightmare already, so 5 more systems won't do much good (I mean Bradley/Marder/AMX-10s/Challengers/Leos).
And what they can do with 10 Leos and 12 Challengers? Frankly, between KMW's stocks and those of a dozen or so allies, 150 or so used LEO 2A4 tanks should have been pooled together and repaired months ago. Even now, KMW and Rheinmetall could standardize them in a Leo 2A4U get them up and prepare for Summer 2023. Those not in good condition could be used to source parts. Any allies not able to send tanks could at least donate funds to restore the Leo 2A4s. Aim for a goal of 120 tanks.

A few of your questions are already answered by Perun. Maintenance is done by it seems a amazing logistical job to Tjech and Bulgaria. Training of crews started in the summer, as was rumored then. This is a 2 to 3 year plan by Nato. And of course there are 'on leave' western soldiers in Ukr besides volunteers.
Its nothing new.

[Nordstern]

You may have noticed that I didn't know the translation of din. Once I looked that up it made a bit more sense. I was very much lost in translation.

Then I can hum a fugue of which I've heard the music's
Din afore
And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense
Pinafore

[VARRAKK]

So how are the Ukraine's trained on so many DIFFERENT vehicles and weapon systems from a dozen different countries? They aren't part of NATO and do not think they have much experience with these vehicles and systems, no way they are operating them without NATO operators walking them through basics.... just the logistics of maintenance will halve half of these inoperable within a week even if they survive.
I believe Ukrainians barely have capacity to repair even Soviet/Russian captured vehicles, so those are usually transferred to Eastern Europe for repairs.
It is logistical nightmare already, so 5 more systems won't do much good (I mean Bradley/Marder/AMX-10s/Challengers/Leos).
And what they can do with 10 Leos and 12 Challengers? Frankly, between KMW's stocks and those of a dozen or so allies, 150 or so used LEO 2A4 tanks should have been pooled together and repaired months ago. Even now, KMW and Rheinmetall could standardize them in a Leo 2A4U get them up and prepare for Summer 2023. Those not in good condition could be used to source parts. Any allies not able to send tanks could at least donate funds to restore the Leo 2A4s. Aim for a goal of 120 tanks.

A few of your questions are already answered by Perun. Maintenance is done by it seems a amazing logistical job to Tjech and Bulgaria. Training of crews started in the summer, as was rumored then. This is a 2 to 3 year plan by Nato. And of course there are 'on leave' western soldiers in Ukr besides volunteers.
Its nothing new.

There are different levels of maintenance and repairs.

Basic stuff Ukraine does themselves.
More complex stuff, they got remote assistance from donation country. Video links etc.
Big repairs, maint. etc are done outside Ukraine by countries that have donated or experience with the systems.

[Malcanis]

IDK man, Ukraine seem to think that they can handle it. They've pretty consistently exceeded expectations with how quickly they've integrated new systems, and they've pretty consistently achieved excellent results whenever they've been given a new weapon system to fight back with so maybe everyone should just start taking their word for it they know what they can use.

[depili]

It is getting easier to list the western countries not training Ukrainians on their soil than the ones training them. There are even quite credible claims that we here in Finland have trained them, but no official confirmation since we don't publish the aid we give for security reasons.

Ukraine has also previously rejected some equipment due to maintenance reasons, so they indeed know what they are doing and what they can support with the aid of neighboring countries offering maintenance.

[VARRAKK]

His last comments are of particular interest

[Candy Crush]

So how are the Ukraine's trained on so many DIFFERENT vehicles and weapon systems from a dozen different countries? They aren't part of NATO and do not think they have much experience with these vehicles and systems, no way they are operating them without NATO operators walking them through basics.... just the logistics of maintenance will halve half of these inoperable within a week even if they survive.
I believe Ukrainians barely have capacity to repair even Soviet/Russian captured vehicles, so those are usually transferred to Eastern Europe for repairs.
It is logistical nightmare already, so 5 more systems won't do much good (I mean Bradley/Marder/AMX-10s/Challengers/Leos).
And what they can do with 10 Leos and 12 Challengers? Frankly, between KMW's stocks and those of a dozen or so allies, 150 or so used LEO 2A4 tanks should have been pooled together and repaired months ago. Even now, KMW and Rheinmetall could standardize them in a Leo 2A4U get them up and prepare for Summer 2023. Those not in good condition could be used to source parts. Any allies not able to send tanks could at least donate funds to restore the Leo 2A4s. Aim for a goal of 120 tanks.

A few of your questions are already answered by Perun. Maintenance is done by it seems a amazing logistical job to Tjech and Bulgaria. Training of crews started in the summer, as was rumored then. This is a 2 to 3 year plan by Nato. And of course there are 'on leave' western soldiers in Ukr besides volunteers.
Its nothing new.

Perun is wrong in assuming the main problem for Ukraine is the artilleries ammunition shortage , but this is the easy fix, as long they have money. (as we speak 20 containers with 122 mm shells from Pakistan are en route to Ukraine via UK). But I believe the spare parts and maintenance are bigger issues and more difficult to address. NATO equipment were never tested in high intensity war conditions. War is one thing, paper calculation is another, real war experience matters enormously for the engineers who designed the weapon from many points of view (how it behaves in real conditions, at different temperatures, how it reacts to the countermeasures of the enemy (where is the case), how wear is manifested, how the weapon behaves in case of intensive use, sometimes beyond the designed parameters, how it resists wear and tear, storage , when used in heavy front conditions, etc.). All this cannot be fully tested in peacetime.
PzH 2000 had reliability problems when the Ukrainians fired over 100 shells per day, the German howitzer was simply not designed to do this, but in the meantime things improved. The Caesar howitzers have exactly the same reliability problems in the front line. In fact, it is not the reliability that gives headaches, but the intensive use, beyond its technical limit.
Le Figaro writes that 16 of the 18 self-propelled howitzers encountered trouble. If in the case of the PzH 2000 the most frequent and annoying problems came from the fire control system and the automatic loading system, in the case of the Caesar, barrel wear is the main problem, but it seems that there are others as well. This is due to the intensive use in combat by the Ukrainians. The French used it throughout Africa, while the Ukrainian front has almost all the characteristics of a high-intensity war with a well-equipped military force, at least at the level of artilleries pieces.
Ukrainians shoot much more shells than the maximum recommended by the manufacturer, and an example of this is an American M777 towed howitzer, whose barrel had to be replaced FOUR times in just a few months.
NATO countries send in Ukraine 200-300 state of art artilleries pieces to fight Russian army with main doctrine is based on use of artillery on large number, soviet era models, but quantity becomes a quality. We can win only if produce more weapons and repair existing stuff faster.

[Malcanis]

Germans are saying that no actual request for Leo II export licenses has been received.

[duckduck]

IDK man, Ukraine seem to think that they can handle it. They've pretty consistently exceeded expectations with how quickly they've integrated new systems, and they've pretty consistently achieved excellent results whenever they've been given a new weapon system to fight back with so maybe everyone should just start taking their word for it they know what they can use.

Yeah, Ukrainian resilience has been the standout story of the war. This is well understood in terms of bravery and stoicism in the face of vile aggression, but the other part is ingenuity and a do-it-yourself spirit. Before the war Ukraine was very poor, with a corrupt and useless government. While this is bad, it taught people to fend for themselves. If your car is broken in the US, you take it to the dealership and they fix it with official parts. In Ukraine, you take it to the local 'mechanic' or maybe your handy cousin and you get it working with what you have to hand. Equally, if something fucks up in your town, westerners will wait for the government to fix it. The Ukrainians know this won't happen, so they get 5-50 trusted guys and fix it themselves.

[depili]

IDK man, Ukraine seem to think that they can handle it. They've pretty consistently exceeded expectations with how quickly they've integrated new systems, and they've pretty consistently achieved excellent results whenever they've been given a new weapon system to fight back with so maybe everyone should just start taking their word for it they know what they can use.

Yeah, Ukrainian resilience has been the standout story of the war. This is well understood in terms of bravery and stoicism in the face of vile aggression, but the other part is ingenuity and a do-it-yourself spirit. Before the war Ukraine was very poor, with a corrupt and useless government. While this is bad, it taught people to fend for themselves. If your car is broken in the US, you take it to the dealership and they fix it with official parts. In Ukraine, you take it to the local 'mechanic' or maybe your handy cousin and you get it working with what you have to hand. Equally, if something fucks up in your town, westerners will wait for the government to fix it. The Ukrainian's know this won't happen, so they get 5-50 trusted guys and fix it themselves.

Ukraine also had much of the soviet heavy industry and defense industry in there. So they had a good deal of know-how when it came to building stuff.

The war has also cut much of the red tape when it comes to programming stuff, like localizing the control systems of donated stuff while undergoing training for the said system, I doubt that thing was handled through the usual channels for source code access.

[Hel OWeen]

So how are the Ukraine's trained on so many DIFFERENT vehicles and weapon systems from a dozen different countries? They aren't part of NATO and do not think they have much experience with these vehicles and systems, no way they are operating them without NATO operators walking them through basics.... just the logistics of maintenance will halve half of these inoperable within a week even if they survive.
I believe Ukrainians barely have capacity to repair even Soviet/Russian captured vehicles, so those are usually transferred to Eastern Europe for repairs.
It is logistical nightmare already, so 5 more systems won't do much good (I mean Bradley/Marder/AMX-10s/Challengers/Leos).
And what they can do with 10 Leos and 12 Challengers? Frankly, between KMW's stocks and those of a dozen or so allies, 150 or so used LEO 2A4 tanks should have been pooled together and repaired months ago. Even now, KMW and Rheinmetall could standardize them in a Leo 2A4U get them up and prepare for Summer 2023. Those not in good condition could be used to source parts. Any allies not able to send tanks could at least donate funds to restore the Leo 2A4s. Aim for a goal of 120 tanks.

A few of your questions are already answered by Perun. Maintenance is done by it seems a amazing logistical job to Tjech and Bulgaria. Training of crews started in the summer, as was rumored then. This is a 2 to 3 year plan by Nato. And of course there are 'on leave' western soldiers in Ukr besides volunteers.
Its nothing new.

Perun is wrong in assuming the main problem for Ukraine is the artilleries ammunition shortage

He doesn't even say that. His video about ammunition shortage concludes that it's not a shortage at all in the sense that there aren't enough shells produced, but rather a logistics/supply issue, i.e. where to get those shells from and how to finance that. As you hinted yourself: barrels could be more of a problem.

[depili]

Also the wear and tear on the arty pieces comes from somehow firing about a months supply of western ammo in week or two, so it's also a ammunition supply issue since the target rich arty war over trenches is something we in the west just didn't plan on.

[Candy Crush]

Perun is wrong in assuming the main problem for Ukraine is the artilleries ammunition shortage

He doesn't even say that. His video about ammunition shortage concludes that it's not a shortage at all in the sense that there aren't enough shells produced, but rather a logistics/supply issue, i.e. where to get those shells from and how to finance that. As you hinted yourself: barrels could be more of a problem.

Are you referring about this video: Ammunition shortages in Ukraine - production, supply, & are Russia or the West running dry? He barely mention the maintenance of systems.
And repairing a car or home appliances is not the same with military grade tech.

edit: about barrels:

We can discuss the number of hits per barrel, what the manufacturers offer today is the maximum that can be obtained with the current technology, or the barrel should withstand an average number hits, which would make competitive price?

[Sacul]

IDK man, Ukraine seem to think that they can handle it. They've pretty consistently exceeded expectations with how quickly they've integrated new systems, and they've pretty consistently achieved excellent results whenever they've been given a new weapon system to fight back with so maybe everyone should just start taking their word for it they know what they can use.

Yeah, Ukrainian resilience has been the standout story of the war. This is well understood in terms of bravery and stoicism in the face of vile aggression, but the other part is ingenuity and a do-it-yourself spirit. Before the war Ukraine was very poor, with a corrupt and useless government. While this is bad, it taught people to fend for themselves. If your car is broken in the US, you take it to the dealership and they fix it with official parts. In Ukraine, you take it to the local 'mechanic' or maybe your handy cousin and you get it working with what you have to hand. Equally, if something fucks up in your town, westerners will wait for the government to fix it. The Ukrainian's know this won't happen, so they get 5-50 trusted guys and fix it themselves.

Ukraine also had much of the soviet heavy industry and defense industry in there. So they had a good deal of know-how when it came to building stuff.

The war has also cut much of the red tape when it comes to programming stuff, like localizing the control systems of donated stuff while undergoing training for the said system, I doubt that thing was handled through the usual channels for source code access.

Yes.
Also, and this is to my surprise, when people flee a battle area it is usualy the higher educated people with money who see what storm is coming (early brain drain). They go to a safe country, lots settle there permanent lots go back later.
The unique thing about Ukr refugee's is that they actively support the home country not by just sending aid back but by working from e.g. NL to Ukr via internet/social media. I know lots of people doing that.

They just moved countries but do the same work via internet for Ukr. Pretty amazing to see tbh. Big hinderance is of course power outage/internet often in Ukr.

In regards to corruption. Ukr is still corrupt but under various marshal law types of temp laws there is little tolerance for that now i am told by many a Ukr. Zelensky did a hell of a job cleaning up the country before feb last year but still many many miles to go in that regard.
When/if the war is over EU and USA will shower Ukr with helicopter money for rebuilding.....wewlad you are gonna see some corruption and stealing of funds then. Estimate in late august was 600B euro worth of destroyed infrastructure. That was august.

[Lallante]

There's a meeting at Ramstein on January 20. I guess it's wait and see until then.

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/6516

Going to be pretty hard to have a proper meeting with that din thrashing away

This is the 8th meeting since the war started. Who do you mean with din?

It's a joke about Rammstein, the metal band.

You may have noticed that I didn't know the translation of din. Once I looked that up it made a bit more sense. I was very much lost in translation.

It didnt work brilliantly because the song I linked is an absolute banger and not really a 'din' by metal standards either.

[Lowa [NSN]]

Bottom line, I'd really like to see clear statements that training and everything else is part of the packages and that as much resources as possible are aligned to that effort from the supplying countries. So far I cant say I have, but maybe I'm wrong?

I think that training is happening, it is just too 'dull' for newspapers to devote too much space to. 'Country X gives Ukraine 100 Y' is a decent headline. 'Country X gives Ukraine 100 Y, plus training, plus ammo, plus parts, plus other consumables, plus ...' isn't. The donor countries want the equipment to be effective and their militaries understand that kit without training and other stuff is useless. Here are a couple of articles on training I could dig up in two minutes from just one newspaper:

Ukrainian soldiers arrive in UK for training: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...british-forces
Ukrainian troops to start training on Patriot missiles in the US: https://www.theguardian.com/world/li...085fda3e65bf1b

I jinxed myself, in a good way. Seen several articles around this today (or snippets in articles and headlines). France and UK for their AA systems was at least clearly mentioned.
So yeah, I'm probably a bit over worried on this.

[Sacul]

Bottom line, I'd really like to see clear statements that training and everything else is part of the packages and that as much resources as possible are aligned to that effort from the supplying countries. So far I cant say I have, but maybe I'm wrong?

I think that training is happening, it is just too 'dull' for newspapers to devote too much space to. 'Country X gives Ukraine 100 Y' is a decent headline. 'Country X gives Ukraine 100 Y, plus training, plus ammo, plus parts, plus other consumables, plus ...' isn't. The donor countries want the equipment to be effective and their militaries understand that kit without training and other stuff is useless. Here are a couple of articles on training I could dig up in two minutes from just one newspaper:

Ukrainian soldiers arrive in UK for training: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...british-forces
Ukrainian troops to start training on Patriot missiles in the US: https://www.theguardian.com/world/li...085fda3e65bf1b

I jinxed myself, in a good way. Seen several articles around this today (or snippets in articles and headlines). France and UK for their AA systems was at least clearly mentioned.
So yeah, I'm probably a bit over worried on this.

The news is out there about training. It is not usualy in main stream media but Duck gave good links.

Military training for Ukr on various weapon systems started in March, one month after the start of war. Mostly in Poland, UK, USA. I have even read NL 'advisors' going to Poland to train Ukr. News is there just not MSM usualy. If by choice or 'dull'news i dunno.

e:
Since 2014 Ukr has changed its battle doctrine and training. There have been many a NATO 'advisor' since then. All either PMC or on 'leave' plus the regular NATO advisors.
This war was prepped by UKR side since 2014. So yeh lel Rusrus yet again having their mind set on 1980s doctrines.