I don’t believe shipping to be the main impediment here so much as a political calculation. After all, we’ve delivered a lot of other bulky and large equipment to their borders.
None of them sound particularly hard. F-16s can be flown over via ferry flights, same way they always do when crossing big oceans. Abrams is C-5 transportable. Everything Ukraine needs can be C-5’d or C-17’d, really.
The U.S. is sending/has sent 200 M-113 APCs. Australia is sending/has sent 14 more. Canada is sending/has sent 39 ACSVs. France is delivering “significant quantities” of VABs.
They’re definitely getting some armored support.
I stand corrected on the T-72s. Those represent the bulk of what Russia is using. I’m less impressed by the antiquated M-113s, though. Almost like some bean counter in the Pentagon figured out it’d be cheaper to give away the obsolete vehicles than pay to mothball or scrap them.
If they’re giving them away, I’ll take an M-113.
I mean…yes.
If there’s old weaponry/vehicles in the American inventory that is due to be scrapped, why not send it to Ukraine to go out in a last-hurrah blaze of glory? One way or another, America wasn’t going to keep it.
The troops training in Britain should be in Ukraine soon. Britain committed to continous training for awhile.
Hope there’s not too many cooks in the kitchen.
Ukraine needs a officer corps and enlisted. Hopefully Britain can train thousands of men in the next few months.
Cite Finland To Send Instructors To Britain To Train Ukrainian Mi... | MENAFN.COM
Cite Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA
Cite Canada to send trainers to UK to teach Ukrainian forces | AP News
Good to see Canada stepping up in the training mission, along with our soon-to-be-welcomed new NATO members, Sweden and Finland!
I think that’s a fair criticism, though I’ll note they were still manufacturing them right up until 2006/7 (though you’re almost certainly right that they’re probably getting the oldest ones the U.S. has that still run). But the counter, I guess:
1.) It’s probably much easier to train Ukrainians to operate a M-113 than a M-1 or Bradley and time spent training with unfamiliar equipment is certainly an issue for Ukraine.
2.) It’s better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick 
.
Macedonia has sent a few more T-72s. Spain was going to send a few mothballed Leopards, but apparently they were in such shit condition that was cancelled.
Look like Poland also sent 40 BMP-1s and Germany okayed a transfer of 56 more ex-East German ones from the Czech Republic. There’s at least a chance of more from Greece, depending on what Germany is willing to back supply them with.
Russia has also donated at least 281 tanks to Ukraine.
Here’s a Forbes article from a few days ago talking about Ukraine’s somewhat uncertain armor formation situation. Conclusion is that trained manpower might be the bigger issue than equipment stocks (granted both are important).
Oh and it included this link listing donated heavy equipment which seems to still be updating.
F-16s would require training to be minimally competent of six months, another six months to gain experience and operate in a combined operations theater. You have to train the soldiers/pilots on these systems. It’s not just HIMARS. A partial list. US and GB 155 and 105mm howitzers, SP howitzers (M109, Caesar, Krab, Pz2000), various counter battery radars, anti-drone systems, drones, anti-aircraft radars, MANPADS, anti-armor weapons, mid and long range anti-aircraft missiles, ground launched anti-ship harpoons and others.command and control communication vehicles. These are complex systems. You need to pull experienced artillery and anti-air personnel for training (not new soldiers). AND keep sufficient forces in the line opposing the Orcs. As Soviet era equipment and ammo is depleted, more forces will be available for training. It takes time even with no breaks.
Logistics is a problem for everyone. The equipment is massive. Ammunition stores required are immense. In spite of a chain of C-17s crossing, you need ships. The number of ports on each side of the Atlantic that accomodate ammunition and explosives is tiny. Moving the equipment to Poland then Ukraine is also a bottleneck. There are multiple restrictions on rail and truck routes and times for transit. Bridges and tunnels must be permitted or avoided. The railroad gauge in Ukraine is different from Western Europe. These massive amounts of cargo must be transloaded at the border. Then it’s hundreds of miles to the front in western Ukraine. Secrecy is required for the movements as well. All this is also in competition with humanitarian supplies. On and On.
Sorry for the repeat. Logistics aren’t easy and training takes time.
More on anti-radiation missiles supplied to UKR. Also general list of latest aid package items like Javelins, NASMS missiles, HIMARS missiles and more.
Capabilities in this package include:
- Additional ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS);
- 75,000 rounds of 155mm artillery ammunition;
- 20 120mm mortar systems and 20,000 rounds of 120mm mortar ammunition;
- Munitions for National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS);
- 1,000 Javelin and hundreds of AT4 anti-armor systems;
- 50 armored medical treatment vehicles;
- Claymore anti-personnel munitions;
- C-4 explosives, demolition munitions, and demolition equipment;
- Medical supplies, to include first aid kits, bandages, monitors, and other equipment.
I’m sure that anti-radiation missions are useful but I’m not sure why it’s a significant thing to point out? It feels like a reasonable and unexceptional thing to send.
Are they extra-high tech/classified technology or something?
Soviet/Russian air defenses are very dense and effective [if used correctly with properly trained and experienced personnel - not currently being done]. Many articles on why the systems are failing to include improper use, poor training, corruption, overhype if you search. Even older systems are quite good at what they do. UKR and Russia have been unable to maintain any sustained presence over the battle lines. Basically low level scoot and fire after a popup maneuver. The Turkish TB drones have been rendered far less effective as the war goes on. Both sides are exacting a toll on each others drones, helicopters, and aircraft. If you can’t suppress the enemy air defenses, it a bad day. That goal, SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) is the prime directive for NATO and US Air Forces and Russia planned against it.
Funny.
You’ve assumed that the M1 and F-16 are good fits for the situation. Since they’re not being sent, you imply that maybe world leaders prefer a stalemate.
I’m no expert, but to me, both weapons seem like poor fits for Ukraine. In addition to the language and training issues already mentioned, the M1 gobbles fuel (and it’s jet fuel) like no other tank in the world. That’s a logistical headache, as is the M1’s size. It’s a whole lot heavier than a T-72.
I can’t see how anyone benefits from a long stalemate. Why prolong something that is causing so much misery and economic cost?
I don’t agree with this myself, in the sense that I don’t think it’s the sole explanation for what’s happening, but from a devil’s advocate standpoint — I have seen it argued that American realpolitik would happily support Ukraine fighting slowly and tenaciously for years as a meat grinder into which Russia will endlessly throw its men and materiel, thereby weakening Russia as an adversary and making any other Russian military adventures much less likely.
Further discussion and debate on this would, I think, be better suited to the politics forum.
Logistical considerations are legit in my book. An argument can certainly be made that specific weapons platforms such as Bradleys, M-1s or F-16s are perhaps not the most desirable choices because we’re not able to adequately support their operation. That may or may not be the case. Maybe the numbers of these weapons platforms need to be introduced in smaller numbers initially and gradually increased in order to ensure adequate training, and development of the necessary logistical support train. It’s a challenge, but I would argue a necessary challenge.
The fact remains that Ukraine needs both more and heavier weapons to successfully go on the strategic offensive and retake their lost territory. T-72s, MiG-29s or other Russian/Soviet hardware do have the advantage of being systems the Ukrainians are already familiar with and to that end serve as a useful stopgap measure, but one of the disadvantages of relying on these is the future sustainability and availability of weapons, replacement parts, and ammo. Sure, they may be able to be purchased on the weapons market from other Russian client states like Syria or India for a time, but currently Russia needs all the weapons and parts it can possibly manage for itself. Stocks of T-72s and parts are shortly going to become very scarce if they aren’t already. In terms of maintaining a reliable future supply of weapons, ammo, and replacement parts, Ukraine is going to need to transition to NATO standard weapons, so if this is going to be a long conflict - and it is increasingly evident that it’s shaping up to be one right now - arguments that western weapons requires new training on the part of Ukrainians diminish as a valid objection over time.
Additional UK contributions as of 22 July:
More than 20 M109 155mm self-propelled guns and 36 L119 105mm artillery guns will soon arrive from the UK, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace announced in an update to Parliament today. Counter-battery radar systems and more than 50,000 rounds of ammunition for Ukraine’s existing Soviet era artillery will also follow, he added.
This equipment will bolster the Armed Forces of Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against Russia’s indiscriminate use of artillery.
The UK will also send more than 1,600 more anti-tank weapons in the coming weeks, along with drones, including hundreds of loitering aerial munitions.
So far 6,900 NLAW, Javelin, Brimstone and other anti-tank weapons, as well as 16,000 artillery rounds, six Stormer vehicles fitted with Starstreak anti-air missile launchers and hundreds of missiles have been sent to Ukraine.
The UK has also supplied maritime Brimstone missiles, multiple launch rocket systems, 120 armoured fighting vehicles and large quantities of non-lethal aid including more than 82,000 helmets, 8,450 sets of body armour and over 5,000 night vision devices.