So, currently, the First World is supplying military equipment to Ukraine, but not any manpower. What kind of equipment can be meaningfully supplied in this way?
On the one hand, you’ve got things like personal firearms. We could send crates of M16s, and the Ukrainian military could just distribute them to their personnel and they’d basically know what to do with them. If they’re more used to AK47s, then there might be a few details that would be different, but nothing you couldn’t pick up in an afternoon.
And from what I understand, the javelin missile launchers are very user-friendly, and also close to this category. They’d need to learn to use them, but you could include instruction books in the shipments.
On the other end of the scale, as I understand it, F22s would be completely worthless without both pilots and ground crews trained for that specific aircraft. Ukrainians could of course learn to fly and maintain an F22, but it’d take extensive training.
What falls in between, and what’s the upper limit of practicality for weapons the West can supply?
The M4 and other AR-15 pattern rifles require regular cleaning thanks to the direct impingement mechanism. The FGM-148 ‘Javelin’ is ‘pretty easy’ to use in comparison to the M47 ‘Dragon’ anti-tank missile it replaced but you still need some training. Same goes for the FIM-92 ‘Stinger’ anti-aircraft missile. I guess you could learn their basic function by reading a manual but if you want to use them effectively under battlefield conditions requires some actual hands-on training. The larger problem is that while ‘man-portable’ systems are effective at harassing an enemy, it requires fighters to get very close to be within range. A likely response by the Russian Army is to avoid getting into urban warfare situations and to just use standoff and indirect fire (missiles and artillery) to destroy cities and other targets to pacify them.
An F-22 not only requires a lot of training but a whole logistical chain to function, and without being integrated into an overall digital warfighting system where is can use integrated data it really isn’t much more capable than a modern fourth generation fighter. Of course, the F-22 is not in production, was never offered for export, and the US isn’t going to be gifting them to Ukraine, so it is kind of a moot point, but the same applies to the F-35. It would make more sense to train and equip Ukrainian pilots with the F/A-18 E/F ‘Super Hornet’ and F-15E ‘Strike Eagle’. Of course, that begs the question of whether the Ukraine would be able to operate and maintain an air force within its borders, and if Russia would regard directly supplying the Ukraine with strike weapons as itself being an act of war.
We’d be better off sending them AK-47’s. For one thing, there are just so many of the things out there, and same goes with the ammunition. For another, Ukraine and Ukrainians are already familiar with them. They are simple, rugged, parts are interchangeable and, frankly, designed so that a conscript with minimal training or a peasant farmer (in Soviet parlance) could essentially pick one up and be able to use it extremely rapidly. Maintenance wise, I’ve heard tales of folks cleaning them out with a knotted shoe string and some motor oil, or the things being buried in mud, scraped clean and fired without many issues. Most of these are probably exaggerations, but the thing really is one of the best battle rifles of all time. The same would go for things like the various RPG variants.
There is zero chance of giving anyone an F-22. We don’t make them anymore, we only have a few hundred (200+ IIRC), and we never exported them even to our closest allies. Even the F-35, which is in production and we do export to our allies is pretty restricted…and no way would Ukraine get one. Then there is the fact that it takes extensive training, not just the pilots but the flight crew as well, plus a pretty extensive logistics and maintenance system to keep one flying. It would be a horrible tool for Ukraine, regardless. Better is the plan to try and get former Warsaw pact countries (like Poland) to give the Ukrainians their old, Soviet era aircraft.
Realistically, what we’ve been giving them. If this were before the invasion, then Soviet era equipment such as artillery, anti-air, tanks and APCs…all of which are still in use in countries like Poland…would have been a pretty big help. The various handheld SAMs and ATGMs we have been giving them have also been a big help, at least from what I’ve seen…and we can and still will be giving them those things. Armed drones are another thing. Other than that, anything we give them they basically need to already know how to use it, or it needs to be very simple to learn…which limits us to what we’ve already been sending them.
Yeah, for short term use there’s no need to complicate things, both logistically and training wise by sending M-4s when there are mountains of AK-series rifles about (standard issue in the pre-war Ukrainian standing army is actually the 5.45mm AK-74; 7.62mm AKM and AK-47 were reserve/mobilization stores; but calling everything in the AK family an AK-47 is pretty common). “Simple” hand-held or crew served weapons like the Javelin or Stinger don’t require much additional training to those already possessing military training, especially training in similar weapons, and they don’t add much to the logistical load. Germany is/was(?) going to send 2,700 old Soviet era Strela shoulder fired SAMs which Ukraine uses, but this is more of a case of what Germany still has in its stores to hand out after its post-Cold War military downsizing. According to the linked article only a maximum of 2,000 are actually still usable, not too surprising considering they’re old East German stocks.
More complicated hardware like tanks or planes are going to require significant specialized training, even if there is already the know-how on hand to maintain and drive another type of tank or fly another kind of plane, and the logistical requirements to maintain armored vehicles or combat aircraft are obviously much greater than that needed for automatic rifles or shoulder fired missiles (which are in some cases one-shot disposable weapons anyway). The on again/off again talk of providing Ukraine with fighter aircraft involves transferring MiG-29s and Su-25s from Eastern European NATO nations rather than Western European or US designed aircraft since Ukraine already operates MiG-29s and Su-25s. Providing even F-16s would only be useful if the war lasts a good many months just to provide the pilot and maintenance training.
It is, but that’s not really why I specified the AK-47. I’m aware of the variants, though, honestly, I didn’t know that Ukraine was using mainly AK-74s. But even with that being the case, there are just a hell of a lot of AK-47’s, and the 7.62 ammo for it all over the place…much wider spread, at least afaik, than the AK-74. Lots of parts, lots of ammo, and basically the same action. And it’s a weapon that you can almost just hand to anyone and they can be using it in short order (the same would go for the other AK variants you mentioned, except maybe the spare parts. I actually don’t know how wide spread the AK-74 is, for instance, and if the same level of ubiquitousness exists wrt parts, ammo and weapons).
Exactly. Last I heard this was a done deal. Germany was also going to send some of their own panzerfaust 3’s as well.
This would be the same issue. You’d need not only to train the pilots, but set up the logistics and train the flight crews. All of it would be new. And they wouldn’t have any of the stuff they would need. I think it would be less than useless to try and send something like this to them, while sending them MiGs or Sukhois that they are already familiar with, that their pilots are trained on and their flight crews are trained on, that they can support and use effectively, is the way to go. There are reasons for the on again/off again talks, but this would really help Ukraine if we can get Poland and other countries still using the things to send them. Of course, those countries are worried they will need them for their own defense soon, so it’s a tough call.
The 66mm has been around for a long time, and isn’t good enough for combatting Main Battle Tanks anymore (it wasn’t even in the 1980s when we had them). Useful for APCs and softskins.
How about hand grenades? Pretty useful in close up house to house fighting. More portable and stable than the Molotov cocktails they are using. Every home should have a few.
Throw in some decent handguns while you are at it. What whould be good one?
How difficult is it to use a flamethrower or claymore mines?
Hand grenades are known colloquially as “noisemakers” or “party favors” because they aren’t actually good for much, and can pose as much of a hazard to an unskilled user as the enemy. They’re basically good for use in clearing rooms or driving soldiers out of foxholes, and that is about it.
The man-portable flamethrower is a harassment weapon with a very short operational time, short range, and a propensity to blow up, covering its user and anyone around in flaming napalm. The US hasn’t used flamethrowers since Viet Nam, and outside of the context of clearing a jungle it has little utility outside of an Iron Man movie.
Directional anti-personnel mines like the Claymore are basically weapons used to create a layered defensive perimeter. They’re not good for taking out anything heavier than a light truck (maybe) and require that either an operator is nearby to trigger them or rig some kind of triggered firing system.
Pistols are desperation weapons; they have short range, little penetration against personnel armor, and despite what you might believe by watching action movies, surprisingly low immediate lethality unless the opponent is hit in the head or upper torso. The advantages of a pistol are how compact it is which makes it easy to keep on your person, easy to use in highly confined spaces, and potentially concealable, and that is about all that can recommend it as a weapon.
I get the impression that many people think that the Russian Army is going to engage in urban pacification and fighting essentially hand-to-hand. The Russian Army is a mostly conscript army with troops that have only a few months of training backed up by their much smaller (but large by Western standards) Spetznaz troops who are primarily concerned with taking control of communication and energy production infrastructure. The Russians are basically going to shell cities indiscriminately, indifferent of civilian casualties as they did in Chechnya and elsewhere as a matter of doctrine, avoiding exposure to partisan harassment as much as possible. Man-portable anti-armor and anti-air weapons that disrupt Russian logistical lines are really their most effective tactics but at the cost of exposing and sacrificing many Ukrainians as well as reprisals to civilian populations.
Sending equipment they’re already familiar with, like MiGs and AK-47s, did occur to me, but how many of those does the US have? There are plenty of other nations friendly to Ukraine that still use them, but the US is by far the richest and most able to donate materiel.
The US doesn’t have any useful former Soviet equipment, but a lot of the NATO nations that are former Warsaw Pact countries still have them in stockpiles or frontline use. The situation with potentially providing MiG-29s from primarily Poland is now revolving around Poland wanting the US to provide them with additional F-16s, which Poland also uses, allowing Poland to transfer over the MiG-29s that it is using in its frontline air force squadrons without weakening its NATO commitments by suddenly selling off what is about 1/3 of its fighters without any replacement plan. For heavier hardware, this is probably the most effective thing the US can do over the short term. Sure, the Polish pilots now flying MiG-29s are going to have to transition over to F-16s, but 1) they already fly F-16s and have experience transitioning pilots over to them from former Soviet aircraft and 2) they have the luxury of not being in an active shooting war and being able to take a few months to train.
I would say transfer all the F-16s (and all the parts and missiles) they want as well as training crews and pilots, and also send a few wings of F-35s or something along those lines to backstop them in the interim while they spin up on the new birds. We have already moved over several thousand troops, and I think some squadrons of aircraft for this purpose already, but that should allay any fears Poland might have that they could be caught short when they transfer planes to Ukraine.
My understanding is the hold up right now is how to get the birds to Ukraine.
Would old tanks be useful? I wonder it there’s any stockpile of old T-62s or T-80s around somewhere, waiting to be put to good use? What about modern tanks?
Well, T-64s were never in vast numbers, and Ukraine still uses them today. T-72s and T-80s would, for sure, be useful to them and they have the familiarity training and logistics to support them. I don’t know how viable it would be for the former Warsaw pact members in NATO to give them MBTs…my guess since I haven’t even heard anything about talks concerning this is that it would be more difficult than even the fighter jet plan Poland is still talking about today. But if you could get them to the Ukrainians, if it’s viable politically, I don’t see why they wouldn’t help, assuming they are in decent condition and have even nominal upgrades.
I know Germany had a bunch of East German T-72s after the unification but I have no idea what they did with them. I know I wouldn’t want to fight in a tank that was mothballed for 30 years.
