All Things Russia & Ukraine

[old salt]

Serious question...how will Putin be "forced" "into negotiations" for a "cease fire"?
That is actually sustained?
His ability to make further military advances will be stalled. He must then decide if it's worth the economic & diplomatic pain to continue fighting or negotiate (while replenishing his military, while we continue building Ukraine's).

I just don't see that happening, and zero reason to trust that Putin would honor any such.
N Korea & Balkans model stalemate

I don't see this ending in any sort of cease fire until the Russian military is literally on the run.
Putin won't be willing to stop, though he could feint that he is, while regrouping.
But a stalemate won't cut it.

Yes, hard. And yes, "hope" is not enough.
And yes, Europeans need to keep doing more and more...but gotta remember than when they send weapons, without replacements ready, they're sacrificing, at least potentially, their own defensive capabilities. We have far less such concerns.
Unless W EU allies have already deployed it to NATO's E flank, they don't need it. Are they defending against the Moors ?

Yeah, that's the problem with democracy...need the public.

In Germany, the opposition is pushing Scholz hard to do much more, and accusing him of potentially reneging on their 2% commitment, which Scholz is denying...political pressure is heavy. They're sending German tanks to eastern European countries in replacement for the soviet tanks they're sending to Ukraine. Specifics plz. This past week they agreed to send German tanks directly to Ukraine as well. Those aren't tanks. They're tracked AAA guns. Last vote was 586-100 supporting Ukraine measures.

[MDlaxfan76]

anti-aircraft tanks. Gepards, right?

[old salt]

anti-aircraft tanks. Gepards, right?

Misleading. False advertising. Rhetorical deception by clueless headline writers, making it seem more than what it is. Just having tracks & some armor does not make them "tanks"

This (which has not yet happened) is what supplying "tanks" would look like.
https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/g ... -newspaper

Slovenia providing tanks, Germany compensating them with IFV's & APC's.
https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict/sta ... 4430610432
https://en.defence-ua.com/industries/sl ... -2633.html

[old salt]

In Germany, the opposition is pushing Scholz hard to do much more, and accusing him of potentially reneging on their 2% commitment, which Scholz is denying...political pressure is heavy. They're sending German tanks to eastern European countries in replacement for the soviet tanks they're sending to Ukraine. This past week they agreed to send German tanks directly to Ukraine as well. Last vote was 586-100 supporting Ukraine measures.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... r-ukraine/

Opinion Germany once committed war crimes in Ukraine. Now it subsidizes Russia’s.
by Max Boot, April 26, 2022

When Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz responded by suspending the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, announcing an additional investment of 100 billion euros in defense, and sending weapons to Ukraine. These were all major shifts in German foreign policy, prompting headlines such as this one in the Atlantic: “Europe’s Sleeping Giant Awakens.”

More than two months later, it’s more accurate to say that the sleeping giant did awaken — but then hit the snooze button and went back to sleep. While Germany was initially at the forefront of responding to the Russian attack, it has now fallen embarrassingly and inexcusably behind many of its allies when it comes to both supplying Ukraine and sanctioning Russia despite horrifying revelations of Russian war crimes.

It’s not as though Germany is doing nothing. It has sent a considerable quantity of munitions to Ukraine, including thousands of antitank and antiaircraft missiles. But its military aid to Ukraine lags behind not only the United States and the United Kingdom but also tiny Estonia. As a percentage of gross domestic product, Germany’s contributions look even stingier — 11 other nations are doing more than Europe’s largest economy.

Germany has been reluctant to send heavy weaponry to Ukraine — meaning tanks, howitzers, drones and long-range air defenses — at a time when that country desperately needs such weapons to win the battle for the Donbas region. The Social Democratic Party governing Germany has offered a series of shifting and unconvincing explanations for its hesitation, including the claim that its armed forces have no armored vehicles or artillery to spare, that the Ukrainians are not sophisticated enough to use German weapons, and that sending heavy weaponry would provoke Russia. Under heavy pressure from allies, Germany finally agreed on Tuesday to deliver 50 antiaircraft tanks to Ukraine. “I am doing everything I can to prevent an escalation that would lead to a third world war,” Scholz told the German news magazine Der Spiegel. “There cannot be a nuclear war.”

Scholz is shamelessly amplifying Russian propaganda: Russian President Vladimir Putin keeps dropping hints about his nuclear arsenal to dissuade the West from aiding his victims. Is the chancellor seriously suggesting that Germany’s NATO allies are risking nuclear war by sending heavy weapons to Ukraine? In fact, he has it backward. The best way to avert a world war is by stopping Russia in Ukraine. If Putin wins this war, he would be emboldened to further aggression against neighboring states, including members of NATO.

Even worse than Germany’s unwillingness to send more aid to Ukraine is its unwillingness to stop all energy imports from Russia. Berlin does plan to stop buying Russian oil and coal this year, but there are no immediate plans to shut the Nord Stream 1 natural gas pipeline. Germany has actually become more reliant on Russian gas over the past decade despite Russia’s first invasion of Ukraine in 2014. In 2011, Germany counted on Russia for 39 percent of its natural gas supplies. Today it’s 55 percent. Every day Germany pays about $220 million to Russia for energy. That’s more than $80 billion a year that finances the Russian war machine.

Germany committed genocide in Ukraine during World War II and vowed “Never Again.” Yet it is now financing Russia’s horrific war crimes in Ukraine — which arguably amount to genocide.

Once upon a time, Germans could convince themselves that trading with Russia would mellow the bear. Germany’s Ostpolitik, dating back to 1969, was premised on “Wandel durch Handel,” or “change through trade.” Beneath the surface, of course, there was a heavy undercurrent of sleaze as many German elites — most infamously former chancellor Gerhard Schröder — became rich off Kremlin largesse.

Germany can no longer argue that there is anything remotely idealistic about its dealings with the Butcher of Bucha. Schröder has become a pariah in his own country. But, having become addicted to cheap Russian energy, the German government now insists that it would be too economically painful to wean itself.

In fact, Germany can end its unconscionable dependence on Russian gas by simply reversing the worst mistake that former chancellor Angela Merkel made: She decided, after Japan’s Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011, to phase out all nuclear power, even though there is no chance of a German nuclear reactor being disabled by a combination of an earthquake and tsunami. Germany once had 17 nuclear power plants. Now only three are left, and they are due to close by year’s end.

Shutting down the nuclear power industry not only makes it harder to stop the Russian war machine but also to slow global warming. German per capita carbon dioxide emissions are nearly twice as high as in France, a country that is expanding, not shuttering, its nuclear power industry. Germany urgently needs to keep its three remaining nuclear plants open and to restart its closed ones. By doing so, it could radically reduce — even end — its immoral reliance on Russian gas imports.

Given that nuclear energy is both far cleaner and far safer than fossil fuels, this would appear to be a no-brainer. Yet the Scholz government, resting on a coalition that includes the Green Party, refuses to take this vital step. It prefers to subsidize Russian war crimes instead. Germany should be ashamed.

[MDlaxfan76]

anti-aircraft tanks. Gepards, right?

Misleading. False advertising. Rhetorical deception by clueless headline writers, making it seem more than what it is. Just having tracks & some armor does not make them "tanks"

This (which has not yet happened) is what supplying "tanks" would look like.
https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/g ... -newspaper

Slovenia providing tanks, Germany compensating them with IFV's & APC's.
https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict/sta ... 4430610432
https://en.defence-ua.com/industries/sl ... -2633.html

you have such interesting sources: Conrad Black's 'unite the right' National Post? Interesting...but yes, there are different sorts of tanks...I'd bet the Ukrainians would be happy to have all they can get...

But yes, Germany needs to do more.

[old salt]

you have such interesting sources: Conrad Black's 'unite the right' National Post? Interesting...but yes, there are different sorts of tanks...I'd bet the Ukrainians would be happy to have all they can get....

... it was a Reuters report. Do you have a problem with Reuters ?
Was there anything inaccurate or slanted in the report ?
It was more detailed & technically accurate that the media which meets your political litmus test.

[MDlaxfan76]

you have such interesting sources: Conrad Black's 'unite the right' National Post? Interesting...but yes, there are different sorts of tanks...I'd bet the Ukrainians would be happy to have all they can get....

... it was a Reuters report. Do you have a problem with Reuters ?
Was there anything inaccurate or slanted in the report ?
It was more detailed & technically accurate that the media which meets your political litmus test.

Reuters, per se?

Nope, but edited and published by National Post.
I don't take issue with the article, I was simply commenting on your interesting news feed from Twitter or wherever, or whatever filter is being applied to you when you search for something, based on what sources they perceive as interesting to you.

You may note that I agreed with your point that Germany should do more.

[old salt]

you have such interesting sources: Conrad Black's 'unite the right' National Post? Interesting...but yes, there are different sorts of tanks...I'd bet the Ukrainians would be happy to have all they can get....

... it was a Reuters report. Do you have a problem with Reuters ?
Was there anything inaccurate or slanted in the report ?
It was more detailed & technically accurate that the media which meets your political litmus test.

Reuters, per se?

Nope, but edited and published by National Post.
I don't take issue with the article, I was simply commenting on your interesting news feed from Twitter or wherever, or whatever filter is being applied to you when you search for something, based on what sources they perceive as interesting to you.

You may note that I agreed with your point that Germany should do more.

Nope on your nope. It's the exact same Reuters release, edited by the same Reuters editor, picked up by numerous other intl publications, including Janes & US News & World report. Your paranoia is boundless.

I saw the Apr 11 Reuters report in some defense related publication (not twitter, not the National Post), shortly after it came out, & found my way back to it doing a google search of [Rheinmetall tanks Ukraine] when trying to confirm whether the recent msm reports of "tanks" meant that real main battle tanks like Leopards were finally being sent, or just tracked AAA guns.

No word yet on Germany providing main battle tanks like Leopards, even as backfill to Slovenia for transferring their Yugoslav made versions of the old Soviet T-72 main battle tank.

[old salt]

you have such interesting sources: Conrad Black's 'unite the right' National Post? Interesting...but yes, there are different sorts of tanks...I'd bet the Ukrainians would be happy to have all they can get....

... it was a Reuters report. Do you have a problem with Reuters ?
Was there anything inaccurate or slanted in the report ?
It was more detailed & technically accurate that the media which meets your political litmus test.

Reuters, per se?

Nope, but edited and published by National Post.
I don't take issue with the article, I was simply commenting on your interesting news feed from Twitter or wherever, or whatever filter is being applied to you when you search for something, based on what sources they perceive as interesting to you.

You may note that I agreed with your point that Germany should do more.

Nope on your nope. It's the exact same Reuters release, edited by the same Reuters editor, picked up by numerous other intl publications, including Janes & US News & World report. Your paranoia is boundless.

I saw the Apr 11 Reuters report in some defense related publication (not twitter, not the National Post), shortly after it came out, & found my way back to it doing a google search of [Rheinmetall tanks Ukraine] when trying to confirm whether the recent msm reports of "tanks" meant that real main battle tanks like Leopards were finally being sent, or just tracked AAA guns.

No word yet on Germany providing main battle tanks like Leopards, even as backfill to Slovenia for transferring their Yugoslav made versions of the old Soviet T-72 main battle tank.

...& I was originally on the scent on Apr 8 when I posted this from the WSJ :

https://www.wsj.com/articles/germany-fa ... 1649410443

In recent days, that position has started to shift amid international pressure, according to one aide to the chancellor who said that Germany might ship some tanks, although there hasn’t been any agreement yet. The tanks that could be delivered from government stockpiles or directly from the manufacturer include the German-made Marder, Gepard and Leopard—all made by the company Rheinmetall —as well as Soviet-made tanks inherited from former East Germany, one official said. Around 100 Marders could be shipped relatively soon, the official said.

My google preferences are likely based upon the specificity of the technical terms I search for, which for Russian & Soviet era weapons systems would likely be most often found in detail in Russian influenced or leaning sources.

[MDlaxfan76]

you have such interesting sources: Conrad Black's 'unite the right' National Post? Interesting...but yes, there are different sorts of tanks...I'd bet the Ukrainians would be happy to have all they can get....

... it was a Reuters report. Do you have a problem with Reuters ?
Was there anything inaccurate or slanted in the report ?
It was more detailed & technically accurate that the media which meets your political litmus test.

Reuters, per se?

Nope, but edited and published by National Post.
I don't take issue with the article, I was simply commenting on your interesting news feed from Twitter or wherever, or whatever filter is being applied to you when you search for something, based on what sources they perceive as interesting to you.

You may note that I agreed with your point that Germany should do more.

Nope on your nope. It's the exact same Reuters release, edited by the same Reuters editor, picked up by numerous other intl publications, including Janes & US News & World report. Your paranoia is boundless.

I saw the Apr 11 Reuters report in some defense related publication (not twitter, not the National Post), shortly after it came out, & found my way back to it doing a google search of [Rheinmetall tanks Ukraine] when trying to confirm whether the recent msm reports of "tanks" meant that real main battle tanks like Leopards were finally being sent, or just tracked AAA guns.

No word yet on Germany providing main battle tanks like Leopards, even as backfill to Slovenia for transferring their Yugoslav made versions of the old Soviet T-72 main battle tank.

again, that's because of your prior viewing history.
No issue about article, or that actual subject matter, just a chuckle about your feed pushing National Post to you and your assumption that "MSM" doesn't cover...it's Reuters, that's MSM, just European.

[MDlaxfan76]

you have such interesting sources: Conrad Black's 'unite the right' National Post? Interesting...but yes, there are different sorts of tanks...I'd bet the Ukrainians would be happy to have all they can get....

... it was a Reuters report. Do you have a problem with Reuters ?
Was there anything inaccurate or slanted in the report ?
It was more detailed & technically accurate that the media which meets your political litmus test.

Reuters, per se?

Nope, but edited and published by National Post.
I don't take issue with the article, I was simply commenting on your interesting news feed from Twitter or wherever, or whatever filter is being applied to you when you search for something, based on what sources they perceive as interesting to you.

You may note that I agreed with your point that Germany should do more.

Nope on your nope. It's the exact same Reuters release, edited by the same Reuters editor, picked up by numerous other intl publications, including Janes & US News & World report. Your paranoia is boundless.

I saw the Apr 11 Reuters report in some defense related publication (not twitter, not the National Post), shortly after it came out, & found my way back to it doing a google search of [Rheinmetall tanks Ukraine] when trying to confirm whether the recent msm reports of "tanks" meant that real main battle tanks like Leopards were finally being sent, or just tracked AAA guns.

No word yet on Germany providing main battle tanks like Leopards, even as backfill to Slovenia for transferring their Yugoslav made versions of the old Soviet T-72 main battle tank.

...& I was originally on the scent on Apr 8 when I posted this from the WSJ :

https://www.wsj.com/articles/germany-fa ... 1649410443

In recent days, that position has started to shift amid international pressure, according to one aide to the chancellor who said that Germany might ship some tanks, although there hasn’t been any agreement yet. The tanks that could be delivered from government stockpiles or directly from the manufacturer include the German-made Marder, Gepard and Leopard—all made by the company Rheinmetall —as well as Soviet-made tanks inherited from former East Germany, one official said. Around 100 Marders could be shipped relatively soon, the official said.

My google preferences are likely based upon the specificity of the technical terms I search for, which for Russian & Soviet era weapons systems would likely be most often found in detail in Russian influenced or leaning sources.

Yup. And I get that you're saying that it's not your own political position that's feeding this, it's your 'technical' searches...but have you considered that those "Russian influenced or leaning sources" might be mostly Russian propaganda driven?

Perhaps you need to be more suspicious?

[old salt]

you have such interesting sources: Conrad Black's 'unite the right' National Post? Interesting...but yes, there are different sorts of tanks...I'd bet the Ukrainians would be happy to have all they can get....

... it was a Reuters report. Do you have a problem with Reuters ?
Was there anything inaccurate or slanted in the report ?
It was more detailed & technically accurate that the media which meets your political litmus test.

Reuters, per se?

Nope, but edited and published by National Post.
I don't take issue with the article, I was simply commenting on your interesting news feed from Twitter or wherever, or whatever filter is being applied to you when you search for something, based on what sources they perceive as interesting to you.

You may note that I agreed with your point that Germany should do more.

Nope on your nope. It's the exact same Reuters release, edited by the same Reuters editor, picked up by numerous other intl publications, including Janes & US News & World report. Your paranoia is boundless.

I saw the Apr 11 Reuters report in some defense related publication (not twitter, not the National Post), shortly after it came out, & found my way back to it doing a google search of [Rheinmetall tanks Ukraine] when trying to confirm whether the recent msm reports of "tanks" meant that real main battle tanks like Leopards were finally being sent, or just tracked AAA guns.

No word yet on Germany providing main battle tanks like Leopards, even as backfill to Slovenia for transferring their Yugoslav made versions of the old Soviet T-72 main battle tank.

...& I was originally on the scent on Apr 8 when I posted this from the WSJ :

https://www.wsj.com/articles/germany-fa ... 1649410443

In recent days, that position has started to shift amid international pressure, according to one aide to the chancellor who said that Germany might ship some tanks, although there hasn’t been any agreement yet. The tanks that could be delivered from government stockpiles or directly from the manufacturer include the German-made Marder, Gepard and Leopard—all made by the company Rheinmetall —as well as Soviet-made tanks inherited from former East Germany, one official said. Around 100 Marders could be shipped relatively soon, the official said.

My google preferences are likely based upon the specificity of the technical terms I search for, which for Russian & Soviet era weapons systems would likely be most often found in detail in Russian influenced or leaning sources.

Yup. And I get that you're saying that it's not your own political position that's feeding this, it's your 'technical' searches...but have you considered that those "Russian influenced or leaning sources" might be mostly Russian propaganda driven?

Perhaps you need to be more suspicious?

In this case, what is there to be suspicious about ? I first saw it buried in the WSJ, then searched for more detail.

You don't trust Reuters ? Why was that detailed content found in the Reuters report barely published or not cited in US msm ?
It allowed for misleading headlines about Germany providing "tanks" when they are only providing tracked AAA guns & still withholding tanks.

You want suspicion ? Was the US msm running misinformation to make it appear that Germany was sending heavy weapons (tanks) when they were not ?
Focus your suspension there. Just admit you were suckered by the msm on the tank terminology & jumped the gun by wrongly accusing Conrad Black's publication of editing a Reuters wire service report.

[MDlaxfan76]

"In this case"...nah, you're not concerned about "Russian influenced or leaning sources" influencing your thinking....

Long history of your citing such sources, Salty, I'm just razzing you a bit. Take it as no more than that.

[old salt]

"In this case"...nah, you're not concerned about "Russian influenced or leaning sources" influencing your thinking....

Long history of your citing such sources, Salty, I'm just razzing you a bit. Take it as no more than that.

...you are incapable of admitting you are wrong. I post a Reuters report on a technical matter, for purely informational purposes & you demean the publication because it shows your error & does not support your narrative. The " long history of ...such sources" is when they provide more specifics about military stuff, often with pictures, OR when specifically pointing out state propaganda or what a foreign leader is doing to influence domestic or non-aligned opinion.

I give forum readers credit for being able to sift out fact from propaganda, without your selective, biased proctoring.

[MDlaxfan76]

"In this case"...nah, you're not concerned about "Russian influenced or leaning sources" influencing your thinking....

Long history of your citing such sources, Salty, I'm just razzing you a bit. Take it as no more than that.

...you are incapable of admitting you are wrong. I post a Reuters report on a technical matter, for purely informational purposes & you demean the publication because it shows your error & does not support your narrative. The " long history of ...such sources" is when they provide more specifics about military stuff, often with pictures, OR when specifically pointing out state propaganda or what a foreign leader is doing to influence domestic or non-aligned opinion.

I give forum readers credit for being able to sift out fact from propaganda, without your selective, biased proctoring.

man, you're like a dog with a bone.

Tanks was correct, not false. You claimed I was wrong...I was not. You made a follow up solid point that not all tanks do the same function. True and good point, no issue with agreeing. You say the Germans should and could do more...I agree.

But I chuckle at your sources and you become SO defensive.

Yeah, you do have a long history of citing various publications which you admit above are biased, often filled with Russian propaganda...and some of us, certainly me, see a correlation between that information feed and some of your stated positions about Russia over time...

Rather than "credit readers for being able to sift out fact from propaganda", how about you point such out yourself instead of others, like me, reminding fellow readers to be watchful for such...given the sources...?

yeah, I see that as your responsibility, given that you're the one sharing those sources...how many times did you cite an RT article without reminding readers what the heck RT is?

[old salt]

"In this case"...nah, you're not concerned about "Russian influenced or leaning sources" influencing your thinking....

Long history of your citing such sources, Salty, I'm just razzing you a bit. Take it as no more than that.

...you are incapable of admitting you are wrong. I post a Reuters report on a technical matter, for purely informational purposes & you demean the publication because it shows your error & does not support your narrative. The " long history of ...such sources" is when they provide more specifics about military stuff, often with pictures, OR when specifically pointing out state propaganda or what a foreign leader is doing to influence domestic or non-aligned opinion.

I give forum readers credit for being able to sift out fact from propaganda, without your selective, biased proctoring.

man, you're like a dog with a bone.

Tanks was correct, not false. You claimed I was wrong...I was not. You made a follow up solid point that not all tanks do the same function. True and good point, no issue with agreeing. You say the Germans should and could do more...I agree.

But I chuckle at your sources and you become SO defensive.

Yeah, you do have a long history of citing various publications which you admit above are biased, often filled with Russian propaganda...and some of us, certainly me, see a correlation between that information feed and some of your stated positions about Russia over time...

Rather than "credit readers for being able to sift out fact from propaganda", how about you point such out yourself instead of others, like me, reminding fellow readers to be watchful for such...given the sources...?

yeah, I see that as your responsibility, given that you're the one sharing those sources...how many times did you cite an RT article without reminding readers what the heck RT is?

You were wrong when you claimed the National Report edited the Reuters report.

RT - cited only on technical military issues. With all the msm discussion of RT, going back to Flynn & the RT dinner, give forumites credit for knowing what RT is. I formed my views on Russian history before RT existed. When I studied Russian & Soviet history, taught by USNA profs, at a time when the USSR was officially a Cold War enemy adversary.
I also post Al Jazerra articles when they have the most complete tech info. That does not make me an Arab terrorist.

...& Gepards are NOT tanks. Truth in advertising. They are SPAAG's -- Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Guns

The German MOD used the term "anti-aircraft tanks" in their press release to make the uninformed general public think they are sending heavy weapons & real tanks.

Just because they have armour & tracks it does not make them "tanks". To be a tank, they need a large caliber gun, the ability to maneuver to fight other tanks, take out other armored vehicles , breach walls & other obstacles & knock down buildings at close range.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flakpanzer_Gepard
The Flugabwehrkanonenpanzer Gepard ("anti-aircraft armoured fighting vehicle 'Cheetah'", better known as the Flakpanzer Gepard) is an all-weather-capable German self-propelled anti-aircraft gun (SPAAG). ...The vehicle is based on the hull of the Leopard 1 tank

What is a tank ==> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification
...many tank chassis are still used for a wide variety of vehicles, ranging from anti-aircraft roles to bridge layers.

[MDlaxfan76]

Ahh yes, my use of "edited by" the National Post was indeed incorrect or at least an unfair impression. Doesn't change my chuckle, but I was indeed sloppy in my statement. I haven't checked to see whether the article was reprinted exactly and 100% as Reuters put out. Might well have been...I had no issue with the article.

Thanks for the lecture and you'll get no argument from me on what the Germans have or could send other than to point out yet again that "tanks" is a term broadly used for more than your quite narrow description.

From your own posts from WSJ,
"In recent days, that position has started to shift amid international pressure, according to one aide to the chancellor who said that Germany might ship some tanks, although there hasn’t been any agreement yet. The tanks that could be delivered from government stockpiles or directly from the manufacturer include the German-made Marder, Gepard and Leopard—all made by the company Rheinmetall —as well as Soviet-made tanks inherited from former East Germany, one official said. Around 100 Marders could be shipped relatively soon, the official said."

The Gepard is built on the chassis of the Leopard 1 TANK.

Yes, it has a specialization in anti-aircraft, but to pretend that it's some sort of PR disinformation to use the word 'tank' in describing it is simply untrue and the nits you are picking are overly pedantic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flakpanzer_Gepard

The vehicle is based on the hull of the Leopard 1 tank[1] with a large fully rotating turret carrying the armament—a pair of 35 mm Oerlikon KDA autocannons and two radar dishes—a general search radar at the rear of the turret and a tracking radar, and laser rangefinder, at the front between the guns. Each gun has a firing rate of 550 rounds/min, which gives a continuous fire time of 37 seconds before running out of ammo (with 680 rounds for both guns).

The guns are 90 calibres (3.15 m (10 ft 4 in)) long, with a muzzle velocity of 1,440 m/s (4,700 ft/s) (FAPDS—Frangible Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot rounds), giving an effective range of 5.5 km (3.4 mi). The KDA autocannon can take two different ammunition types; the usual loading is a mix of 320 AA and 20 AP rounds per gun. Combined rate of fire is 1,100 rounds/min.

The electrically driven turret is powered by a 40 kW generator driven by a 4-cylinder, 3.8 litre Mercedes-Benz OM 314 multi-fuel engine.

Since the eighties, Stinger teams have been accompanying the Gepard units to take advantage of their long-range scanning capacity. To combine this capacity in a single unit, a missile system upgrade that mounts the FIM-92 Stinger MANPADS (in twin packs) to the autocannons was developed. The system was tested by the German Bundeswehr but not bought due to budget restrictions and the fielding of the Ozelot Light Flak System (LeFlaSys).

[old salt]

Ahh yes, my use of "edited by" the National Post was indeed incorrect or at least an unfair impression. Doesn't change my chuckle, but I was indeed sloppy in my statement. I haven't checked to see whether the article was reprinted exactly and 100% as Reuters put out. Might well have been...I had no issue with the article. I'll save you the trouble. I checked before my first response.

Thanks for the lecture and you'll get no argument from me on what the Germans have or could send other than to point out yet again that "tanks" is a term broadly used for more than your quite narrow description.Not really. It's not my narrow description. It's standard accepted military nomenclature. * It was used in numerous reports on this story because the German MOD used it in their press release & most news stories used their misleading terminology.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle


From your own posts from WSJ,
"In recent days, that position has started to shift amid international pressure, according to one aide to the chancellor who said that Germany might ship some tanks, although there hasn’t been any agreement yet. The tanks that could be delivered from government stockpiles or directly from the manufacturer include the German-made Marder, Gepard and Leopard—all made by the company Rheinmetall —as well as Soviet-made tanks inherited from former East Germany, one official said. Around 100 Marders could be shipped relatively soon, the official said."
That is what prompted me to dig further. It says "might" & "could" which is what prompted me to look further. Marders & Gephards are NOT tanks. They are SPAAG's & IFV's -- important distinctions in offensive vs defensive capabilities, which are significant in this case, in both the capability they provide & the reaction they could provoke in response from the Russians. In terms of the political PR discussion, Leopards are definitely "heavy" weapons. "Heavy" is based on firepower & offensive capability. not on weight.


The Gepard is built on the chassis of the Leopard 1 TANK. So is the AVLB tracked bridging vehicle. That does not make them tanks.

Yes, it has a specialization in anti-aircraft, but to pretend that it's some sort of PR disinformation to use the word 'tank' in describing it is simply untrue and the nits you are picking are overly pedantic.
It is not pedantic when it differs from standard military nomenclature in a way that is misleading about the primary bone of contention over the weapons that Germany will, or will not, provide. I've yet to see a confirmation that Germany will provide Leopard tanks to Ukraine or even back fill Slovenia for the T-72 tanks they have agreed to provide.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Ahh yes, my use of "edited by" the National Post was indeed incorrect or at least an unfair impression. Doesn't change my chuckle, but I was indeed sloppy in my statement. I haven't checked to see whether the article was reprinted exactly and 100% as Reuters put out. Might well have been...I had no issue with the article. I'll save you the trouble. I checked before my first response.

Thanks for the lecture and you'll get no argument from me on what the Germans have or could send other than to point out yet again that "tanks" is a term broadly used for more than your quite narrow description.Not really. It's not my narrow description. It's standard accepted military nomenclature. * It was used in numerous reports on this story because the German MOD used it in their press release & most news stories used their misleading terminology.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle


From your own posts from WSJ,
"In recent days, that position has started to shift amid international pressure, according to one aide to the chancellor who said that Germany might ship some tanks, although there hasn’t been any agreement yet. The tanks that could be delivered from government stockpiles or directly from the manufacturer include the German-made Marder, Gepard and Leopard—all made by the company Rheinmetall —as well as Soviet-made tanks inherited from former East Germany, one official said. Around 100 Marders could be shipped relatively soon, the official said."
That is what prompted me to dig further. It says "might" & "could" which is what prompted me to look further. Marders & Gephards are NOT tanks. They are SPAAG's & IFV's -- important distinctions in offensive vs defensive capabilities, which are significant in this case, in both the capability they provide & the reaction they could provoke in response from the Russians. In terms of the political PR discussion, Leopards are definitely "heavy" weapons. Marders & Gepards are not. "Heavy" is based on firepower & offensive capability. not on weight.


The Gepard is built on the chassis of the Leopard 1 TANK. So is the tracked bridging vehicle. That does not make them tanks.

Yes, it has a specialization in anti-aircraft, but to pretend that it's some sort of PR disinformation to use the word 'tank' in describing it is simply untrue and the nits you are picking are overly pedantic.
It is not pedantic when it differs from standard military nomenclature in a way that is misleading about the primary bone of contention over the weapons that Germany will, or will not, provide. I've yet to see a confirmation that Germany will provide Leopard tanks to Ukraine or even back fill Slovenia for the T-72 tanks they have agreed to provide.

[MDlaxfan76]

Again, thanks for the lecture and let me say again, as it's been awhile, that one of the things I most appreciate, as a fellow reader, is your military expertise and interests. They are often quite illuminating.

I'm indeed a lay person, as are most posters on here.

Here's an article that addresses the many types of armored fighting vehicles, including the specificity that you're demanding. Most lay folks would not distinguish numerous of these many types of equipment from tanks, albeit the classic form is indeed familiar to most of us as well.

https://whitefleet.net/2015/12/01/milit ... -vehicles/

It seems pretty thorough, if not exhaustive.

Here's the description of SPAAG:

SPAAGs are designed to engage low-flying aircraft with autocannons and missiles. They are generally lightly armored and are built from an IFV or APC chassis. Despite being built for anti-aircraft combat, the powerful autocannons of a SPAAG are suited to ground combat as well, and many SPAAGs (such as the ZSU-23-4) are employed against infantry. Most SPAAGs have radar sets which may be used for fire control or merely for initial detection.

Size: Generally smaller than a tank; tracked APC or IFV sized.

Guns: Either multiple autocannons (usually 20-40 mm) or a rotary cannon (Gatling gun). May also have machine guns as secondary weapons.

Missiles: Some carry short-range anti-air missiles; these will generally be small and turret mounted.

Propulsion: Usually tracked.

Windows: No.

Exceptions: A vehicle that carries anti-air missiles but does not have autocannons is not a SPAAG.



The Gepard appears to be more heavily armored and larger in size than the typical SPAAG, built on a tank chassis, but you are correct that it's mostly for antiaircraft. I think you overstate, somewhat, that these are purely "defensive" weapons, as SPAAGs do get used versus infantry as well as against aircraft...of course, "defensive" versus "offensive" sure seems like a silly distinction when people are getting slaughtered. I suspect you agree.

We definitely agree that the Germans could and should do more. Hopefully they will.