Hacker News Reader

Comment by rainworld | Hacker News Reader

not been sufficiently trained

FTA: In Mali they discovered a 10x breakdown rate compared to home in Germany. And that wasn’t even war. Also, they lack spare parts. The beauty of just-in-time logistics. Read up on how much of a typical NATO army is operational at a given (peace) time. '91 was a long time ago.

Old Leopard 1 tanks would have been a better choice

There goes “crew survived”.

built for a different purpose: combined arms operations

“Easy. Just win before the tanks break down. Just destroy the enemy before you ever get close.” Someone should have explained that to the Ukrainians.

could be won with lots of artillery shells

Shells that NATO can neither supply nor produce in sufficient quantities.

highly mobile artillery

They have (had) enough of those. Barrel wear ruins the range, Lancets ruin the paint job.

View on HN

I'm not sure the issues with Leopard 2 tanks is indicative of quality, or more a reflection of how shallow the German military has become. And I agree with you that Leo 1 tanks aren't suitable. They have nice fire control systems, and good mobility, but their armor protection is terrible.

The war in Ukraine is showing that the West is woefully unprepared for a major conflict. We saw signs of this with NATO air forces running short of PGMs during the Libya intervention.

Shells won't be a problem in a year or so, and worldwide there's enough production to move enough to Ukraine if the political will is there. But Western defense contractors have been starved for so many years that expanding production won't occur rapidly. Look at the backlog for F-16s.

A year is too much for Ukraine. Russia has already bought 1M shells from North Korea that are on their way to the frontline. NK has promised to deliver another 10M in total. Let's just hope they're shit quality and that the promises are typical DPRK propaganda.

Also F16s for Ukraine is a questionable choice. Other than not being available, they need a good runway and are higher maintainance than the MiGs and Sukhois that the Ukrainians are used to. Also replacement parts need to be shipped (from the US?). The Saab Gripen is a more sensible choice for them: it can be housed in a barn and use a road to take off. No idea how many can Sweeden deliver and there are also political issues as well like Sweeden not being part of NATO yet.

Ukraine can hold out until the West gets its production (of all systems) back in line with worldwide requirements. Russia has already received the 1M shells, and they are of poor quality. But even at a 50% failure rate, they've had an impact.

The F-16 is actually the best choice. There are multiple users worldwide, so lots of training facilities, lots of spare parts depots, and almost every NATO weapon is qualified on it. The Gripen would be great if it wasn't needed for a few years; the production rate is too slow to fulfill Ukraine's needs and the Swedes have no desire to send stock from their own air force. Can't blame them really. They've been cutting back on their military like the rest of Western Europe for decades.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com