And What Did They Expect?

To fight Iraqi Army with "monkey models" T-72s which Iraqis couldn't even dig in properly? 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ukraine has sidelined U.S.-provided Abrams M1A1 battle tanks for now in its fight against Russia, in part because Russian drone warfare has made it too difficult for them to operate without detection or coming under attack, two U.S. military officials told The Associated Press. The U.S. agreed to send 31 Abrams to Ukraine in January 2023 after an aggressive months long campaign by Kyiv arguing that the tanks, which cost about $10 million apiece, were vital to its ability to breach Russian lines. But the battlefield has changed substantially since then, notably by the ubiquitous use of Russian surveillance drones and hunter-killer drones. Those weapons have made it more difficult for Ukraine to protect the tanks when they are quickly detected and hunted by Russian drones or rounds. Five of the 31 tanks have already been lost to Russian attacks. 

In the end, it is the question of reputation--one can push this "Gulf War--The Greatest Thing Ever" only so far, but eventually even the fanboys get the whiff of desperation. Caveats like "we didn't send the latest models because Russians may get the secrets" also work only to a certain extent, after that it becomes a lame excuse, which it is, and the tank warfare undergoes a dramatic overhaul in SMO, with tanks increasingly carrying anti-drone screens and now EW complexes, as Russian Tsar Tank has demonstrated:

And this is just the start of it. I mean evolution of the technical requirements for armored forces which far from getting obsolete, as many fanboys from media rushed to conclude, are getting a serious upgrade and are not going anywhere. You just need to make them good enough for modern warfare, which no Western tank, even their super-duper versions are. That explains also the issue of NATO's AD. We saw what Iran did to Israel and its servants from NATO. Meanwhile--Moscow's Park of Victory is getting ready its exhibition of NATO armor finally making it to Moscow:

   

The exhibition will open for general public on May 1st, it is free. 

They are still adding the exhibits.

Now It Is Becoming...

 ... a comedy. 

It’s been two months since ex-American M-1s tanks arrived in Ukraine. And two months since we’ve seen any evidence of the tanks.  It’s not clear what Ukraine is doing with its 31 Abrams, but it is clear what it should be doing: up-armoring them to resist attacks by Russia’s explosive-laden first-person-view drones. FPV drones are everywhere all the time along the 600-mile front line of Russia’s 23-month wider war on Ukraine. They now rival mines as the biggest threats to tanks on both sides. It’s all but inevitable that Ukraine will lose some of its four-person, 68-ton M-1s. The 2000s-vintage M-1A1SAs that Ukraine received are some of the best-protected tanks in the world, but they’re not invulnerable to attack.

In related news, it is also good for M-1s to lose a couple of pounds... ahem, I mean, 10-15 tons, to get a lower profile, to get new tracks with a better traction, get a turret's effective anti-FPV screen and, in general, to stop being M-1 and become something which is suited for modern war not for rolling over incompetent and demoralized Iraqi infantry in ideal desert conditions. 

Per sights and other "avionics"--they are all about the same in most modern tanks and Russian T-90M Proryv and T-14 Armata are fully netcentric tanks capable to communicate and even provide targeting not only within homogeneous tank (armor) unit but even for aircraft and AD complexes. Ah yes, all (ALL) Russian tanks are capable to launch a very nasty ATGM Reflex through their guns, M-1 cannot. So, the great military "expert" from Forbes David Axe can wet dream whatever he wants about those 31 VSU Abrams but they ain't getting to the battlefield where they will be blown up by Russians and then the pictures and videos of them burning will be gladly shared by Russian military with global community. 

I mean, for many going through the realization of NATO weapon systems being NO GOOD in modern war is a difficult moral journey, but, believe me, for me also when I fully realized the depth of Pentagon's incompetence it was a shocking discovery. Here are German Welt's journos and "experts" suddenly recognized that Patriots PAC-2,3 in 404... suck and cannot stop X-32 cruise missiles. Welcome to the Putin Krieg, morons.

Of course, X-32 while being extremely high supersonic and stand-off is still not hypersonic missiles. Here is me 4 years ago explaining this simple fact that and explaining that no NATO AD system, naval or ground based, can stop the salvo of X-32, which also since then underwent even deadlier modification.

The reason for that is a simple fact that large and expensive surface combatants are not survivable in the modern naval combat, unless they have weapon systems which can fight REAL hypersonic weapons such as fully combat ready and deployed Kinzhal, 3M22 Zircon or even nearing M=5 X-32 anti-shipping missiles. That is the real hypersonic threat, not those exotic Avangard gliders which merely exist to forestall the appearance in the future of similar systems in the United States and, if it ever materializes (I doubt it, but who knows) some sort of strategic anti-missile system. Unlike Avangard, which is a nuclear deterrent, another one in Russia's arsenal, Kinzhal, X-32 and Zircon are actual weapons designed specifically to fulfill a classic Sea Denial (or, if one wants an exercise in Pentagonese from me--Battle Space Denial) in both conventional or nuclear variants. They, not the Avangard, are the weapons which, being tactical-operational ones, achieved already a strategic and even doctrinal effect and these weapons are extremely precise. United States knows that. Liana, as Shoigu reported recently, namely last Peon NKS is nearing completion (in Russian), that's what is going to complete creation of Liana, which will (already does) provide detection, tracking and targeting for hypersonic and supersonic weapons against any targets. 

People love to talk about hypersonic Kinzhal, which performed brilliantly, but the salvo of X-32s which actually carry false targets and extremely ECM resistant is also not survivable. Unless, of course, it is in 404 and Western media, but then again, they still cannot wrap their brains around the outcome of SMO which unfolds while I type it here. Russia also launched more satellites in the last couple of weeks and is gaining a much better situational awareness and targeting certainty in preparation for... what? Make your own conclusions. The SMO is a paradigm shift for which Russia was preparing since 2008. Recall, I wrote this book 5 years ago:
    

In it I explained that physics and mathematics for NATO' victory in modern warfare are absent and that combined West operates legacy systems based on self-aggrandizing mythology (a euphemism for lie) of its part in WW II and, of course, BS of the Gulf War. The worst part for the West (USA generally) is that this cannot be changed because the clockwork of Western views on warfare is broken and doesn't work. 

As Alexei Leonkov (aka Comrade Maduro) explains in Russian--the thesis which I advance for the last 10 years in my writing--US doesn't have great strategic analysis as such due to a complete degeneration of the American educational system, including military education, and belief in all kinds of equivalents of computer Teslas, not understanding that they operate primarily on myths. 

You cannot fix this system without destroying it and rebuilding it anew based on verified datasets and proper history and historical assessments. And here is what I noticed recently, once in a long while I go to the comments to my books on Amazon. And here is the comment to my first book. Take it for whatever it is. 

This first of Martyanov's three books is the most infuriating, aggravating, sickening and depressing book that I’ve read in years. He dispassionately debunks the myths of American exceptionalism and that of the US military as the finest fighting force in history. As a retired USAF pilot, this has been a bitter pill for me to swallow. At no time during my four years in the Pentagon in USAF Plans & Ops, as well as USAF Requirements, plus Armed Forces Staff College & Air War College, plus 15 years in the cockpit in both crew and command positions, none of the significant information he shares was ever made known or disclosed to me. His experience, knowledge and footnotes are impressive. Likewise his writing style is straightforward and to the point; no hyperbole. This book should be MANDATORY reading for EVERY senator and congressman, particularly those on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, as well as every US military officer, senior NCO, DoD, State Department, NSA and Executive Branch decision maker, especially the Offices of the President and Vice President. We are woefully unprepared to engage in a conventional conflict with either Russia or China and no one wins a nuclear war.

So, you see--I warned.  And just let me add--we ain't seen nothing yet. Or as Vladimir Vladimirovich said--we haven't even started yet.

They Begin To Suspect Something...

No, really. 

„Können keinen Unterschied machen“: Kommen US-Abrams-Panzer für die Ukraine zu spät?

Translation:  “Can’t make a difference”: Are US Abrams tanks coming too late for Ukraine?

After that, this German outlet begins to wax all tactical-operational (translation). 

The tanks give the Ukrainian armed forces a valuable boost for combined arms maneuvers against Russia. However, some Western experts and Ukrainian officials believe that the volume, timing and problematic logistics do not currently allow for the impact that the Abrams could have for Ukraine. A total of 31 tanks "couldn't make a difference," although Kiev was "very grateful" for the supplies, said Oleksiy Honcharenko, a member of the Ukrainian parliament. This year, it looks like the Abramses are coming too late to really counter Ukraine's grueling efforts in the south and east of the country, the lawmaker told Newsweek. At the same time, it is also clear that the war will continue next year.  

So, on, and on, and on--non-stop coping  with the destruction of the myths of NATO TOE and even Mark Galeotti, this sleek fellow whose "expertise" is primarily in writing about Russia's organized crime--I have no idea how writing about racketeering or money laundering makes one a "specialist" in combined arms operations--figured it out that:

I speak about it in my latest video. And as I am on record for years--NO weapon system, short of nuclear weapons, in NATO's (primarily American) arsenal can make a difference in the outcome. Wars are not fought the way it is taught in ANY Western military institution. Until Western military leaders throw away everything they know about war, starting from the WW II and the way USSR fought it, and learn the actual history and how they misconstrued West's "victory" in the Cold War, nothing will allow them to see the military reality. 

Yesterday, while visiting Barnes and Noble I bought Douglas Macgregor' Margin of Victory. I already covered the most important parts of it and I am disappointed, despite my respect for him and his stance on war. But, recall what I said recently about all those rankings? Ranking anything is usually when someone has nothing to say and Macgregor's book's full title is:

Margin of Victory: Five Battles that Changed the Face of Modern War

Sadly, my suspicions have been confirmed:

1. Macgregor is simply illiterate in anything concerning Russia/Soviet history and continues to reside in the Solzhenitsified and Beavorised version of this pop-history. While he gives his dues to Operation Bagration, he completely loses the plot insofar as Deep Operations (Deep Battles) are concerned because the genesis of all that is in WW I Brusilov's Offensive whose scope and scale, including development of new tactics for artillery (Wall of Fire) and superb operational planning by Russians paved the way to the ideas which later manifested themselves already at Kursk. This monstrous battle by Brusilov and Russian Army  even in the words of a late Russophobe John Keegan was described as: "the Brusilov Offensive was, on the scale by which success was measured in the foot-by-foot fighting of the First World War, the greatest victory seen on any front since the trench lines had been dug on the Aisne two years before". How Battle of Mons, which was dwarfed in scale and consequences by Brusilov and Russian Army, entered the list is known only to Macgregor himself. British didn't really change any face of war in terms of ground operations in the XX century, Russian wrote a book on it. 

2. And, of course, Battle of 73 Easting. I understand that Macgregor who fought it with his formation has a special spot for it, but in a larger scheme of things, insofar as the US combined arms warfare is concerned, it was an anomalous battle which merely confirmed what was known by anyone who ever served in military--Iraqi Army was a backward, badly trained, consummate third world military incapable to fight modern war. Lieutenant-General Klokotov's conclusion should be repeated by any American officer who really wants to know what REAL war is, but it will not be.

“I would like to emphasize here that the Persian Gulf war was taken as the standard in studying the strategic nature of possible war. It would appear that this position, adopted in the draft ‘Fundamentals of Russian Military Doctrine,’ is dangerous. The fact is that this war [was] ‘strange’ in all respects [and] cannot serve as a standard.”

Stated in 1992 this cannot be anymore construed by anyone as the case of a professional envy by Russians--Russian military history dwarfs that of the US, especially wars winning record, but as a warning. Macgregor's conclusions, especially in terms of force structure for the US and possibility of the full spectrum domination are reasonable, but impossible to realize because the US is simply not wound as a nation for REAL continental wars. And even American ground war technology reflects it through all those weapon systems which belong to primarily parades or attacking civilians. 

The issue of combat air is altogether--a separate can of worms. In the end, however, the United States doesn't have General Staff and has no experience of command-controlling and building armed forces as Russia does. Frankly, I was disappointed, for all my respect for the Colonel. Until the US Army exorcises myths about Patton, Gulf War and similar PR events and learns real military history, it will not be able to fight anyone better than rag-tag forces. Maybe, it is for the better. 

No Shit!

Thanks to Scott Ritter who posted the screenshot of Politico in his UTube channel. Here is the Captain Obvious piece No breakthrough yet in Ukraine’s counteroffensive from this rag:

If Ukraine’s supporters were hoping for a breakthrough after Kyiv’s forces made a new push in the southeast of the country last week, they were sorely disappointed. The latest attack, which saw Ukraine throw in thousands of Western-trained reinforcements to drive south from the town of Orikhiv, has not yet yielded significant results, U.S. Defense Department officials told NatSec Daily this week, with one noting that the gains are being measured in the hundreds of meters. Ukraine now has 150,000 troops committed to the operation across three axes of attack, including multiple Western-trained brigades, said one of the DOD officials, who like others interviewed for this newsletter was granted anonymity to discuss operational details. But Kyiv is still keeping a number of forces in reserve, as soldiers continue probing heavily mined Russian defenses for weak spots. “They are making mostly small, incremental gains” on all three axes, the official said. “They are still facing stiff Russian resistance — second and third layers of defenses.” Pentagon spokesperson Brig. Gen. PATRICK RYDER referred questions about the counteroffensive to the Ukrainian military, but noted that “it has and will continue to be a tough fight for them.”

Well, somebody needs to give US MSM and many Pentagon officials a basic course in military history and a brief review of operations as reflected in Russia's field manuals and operational documents, the ones which are available to public. It might help, including the understanding of why all those Air-Land Battle(s) by Pentagon are fiction and exercise in operational and strategic wet-dreaming.  

I also have news for Politico and their "journos", when they report this:

Ukrainian forces are eagerly awaiting the arrival of the U.S. Army’s M1 Abrams main battle tank, which is expected as soon as early September and will help punch through Russia’s defensive lines. But as the operation grinds on, DOD officials expect the counteroffensive will last at least through the fall and possibly into the winter.

Shh, don't tell anybody, but Russians are also eagerly awaiting the appearance of the US Army's M1 Abrams MBTs and have been quite disappointed when learned that those Abrams will arrive without advanced electronics and active defense. I know, I know--they need another excuse the moment those M1s will begin to burn after meeting T-90M, PTRK Kornet or Krasnopol smart munition, or those nasty Mi-28s and Ka-52s, and that is when this excuse will be used: you see, we sent them inferior models. This is how the excuse will sound, word for word. But give British the credit where the credit is due--they first developed and procured (in Ukraine) completely Stealth MBT Challenger. It is so stealthy in visual diapason that no one have seen it on the battlefield so far. They are there, but not visible. That's what I am talking about--technology of the future. 

But when Politico publishes that:

Ukraine’s plan if Russia assassinates Zelenskyy. A Russian assassination would deprive Ukraine’s war effort of one of its most valuable assets.

Ze, run, run like hell, because THEY, not Russians, will kill you and throw your body away as a used condom, if your body will be found at all. Run, run... to Russia--the only place where there is no death penalty, so far, and where you have all chances to stay alive and even have three square hot meals (wait, does evening tea count as a meal?) and Russian prisons are great places for beating drug addictions--doesn't matter if you are a murderer, a serial rapist or, like in your case--war criminal. Run Ze, run! You are a used condom and Globalists need a martyr. No, not Greta Thunberg, but you fit all criteria perfectly. Do you want to die for 404 "Democracy"?

No, It Doesn't Fear...

... M1 Abrams "being captured". It fears it being paraded the same way German Leopards have been paraded--destroyed. 

Russians promised to display defeated NATO weapons in fronts of embassies of NATO countries in Moscow. So, I am sure seeing burned Abrams in a front of US Embassy in Moscow would be a humiliation the US doesn't want to face. But, at this stage one has to ask the question--where did the US get the idea of being a premier armor warfare power? From defeating inept Middle Eastern armies? I know there are many fans of IDF armor warfare and technological masturbation to Merkavas which lasted exactly till they faced off with Kornets at Litany. 

Plus, there is this teeny-weeny issue which is not counted--there is also a huge bounty for NATO weapons and it is paid by a number of Russian very rich patriots, such as Grigory Leps and they did pay out already. I don't know what current rate is, but I am sure there will be many takers. Especially considering Russian history with this type of the warfare. 

At this time I am not even sure that those people in the US heard of that:

Do they even have a grasp of the scale? I doubt it. In related news, Challengers are avoiding appearing on the front-lines of SMO. Evidently they have "issues", wink, wink;))  

Just a refresher how it usually looks like:

I thought I will just put it here for people to keep in mind that no US servicemen knows what is it to defend his family and home. Russians did it for 1, 200 years. In the end, Russians created this monster:

 

Which would simply blow up any Wehrmacht tank to smithereens with its 122-mm gun. Today, choices are so much wider across all domains. It is like a candy store for those hellbent on destruction. So, I just wanted to remind you about this.

Oh, Come On!!

Why don't they say the REAL reason behind that. 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States aims to break the dynamic of grinding warfare and near-frozen front lines in Ukraine with newly announced military capabilities that it hopes will breath fresh momentum into Kyiv's battle against Russian forces, a senior Pentagon official said on Wednesday. But Colin Kahl, the Pentagon's top policy adviser, said the Pentagon still wasn't prepared to meet Kyiv's calls for gas-guzzling M1 Abrams main battle tanks. "I just don't think we're there yet," said Kahl, who had just returned from a trip to Ukraine. "The Abrams tank is a very complicated piece of equipment. It's expensive. It's hard to train on. It has a jet engine."

I don't know what was taught to this mysterious "senior Pentagon official", but it looks like he slept at all of his lectures in US Army War College on armored warfare and operational art. Granted this "senior official" is real and is not pulled out of the ass of some BSer from Reuters, who reported on that. But then, again, in the military culture where big mouth Patton is considered a tank genius while never facing in his life people the scale of Guderian, Mainstein, Model or Hoth, or, for that matter, Katukov or Rybalko, let alone Rokossovsky or Konev, who were way above Patton's rank and pay grade, but... sure--Strykers are going to do well against T-72B3s, let alone T-90Ms, not to speak of Russia's SMART munitions, right? If this anonymous "senior official" thinks so, then I am not surprised with Pentagon's "stellar" record of wars from Vietnam, to Iraq and Afghanistan.  

As Larry, very reasonably, assumed yesterday:

Not a lot of good news in Ukraine other than the United States and Europe are promising to send more weapons to a beleaguered Ukrainian army. I actually think the Russians are more delighted by this than Ukraine.  

Helmholtz Smith today reinforces this point and goes even further: 

Here’s what the Western MSM hasn’t told you. The Russian Armed Forces as such haven’t been much involved so far. Airborne at the beginning, some fast air and rotary wing, a lot of artillery throughout. But the big fighting has been done by the LDPR militias everywhere, Wagner at Bakhmut defense complex, Chechens in Mariupol. The big shoe hasn’t dropped. The Russian Armed Forces proper have 200,000 to 500,000 troops armed trained and equipped (lots of tanks – the latest T-90s are showing up). Will they complacently sit there watching Ukraine and NATO “demilitarize” themselves? Or is a “big arrow” offensive coming? It’s Moscow’s choice. The optimist can hope that the announcements of wonderwaffe that haven’t actually got to Ukraine are the exculpation that “we did everything we could” before the lift-off from Kabul Airport West. The pessimist can fear that NATO, when it finally gets to the bottom of the barrel and has cut its arms and legs off, will use the last weapon it has.

For pessimistic scenario, it seems, by the mood of Putin, Shoigu and Lavrov, not to mention Patrushev and Medvedev, all necessary messages re: the outcome for the US in case some will decide to go rogue, have been conveyed, including explanation of this ABM balance of power, especially against the background of Russian ABM capabilities which the US simply doesn't have. And that means a survival of enough professional Russians who will hunt down those who issued the "order" in the rubble of what will be left of the US. But, I think, the situation is closer to exculpation scenario. Plus, judging by intensity with which DNC and their whores in media begin to sink Biden, even they have had enough. Tucker seems to think so. 

But in the end, even crooks want to live, and when you fight Russia all out--you will be dead. I think this realization is dawning on many in Washington. And many, certainly, do not want to see a very large number of videos of M1 Abrams tanks burning in industrial quantities in 404, courtesy of Russian Armed Forces. Hey, I warned about it. I will repeat it again and will continue to repeat it as long as it takes. Eight years ago, almost to the day:

So, the events must run the course. But it is already clear that by failing to achieve any sensible political objectives in Ukraine and in Russia, and, by this, starting a massive global re-alignment, the United States sustained a defeat. What will be the consequences of this defeat? I hate to speculate, I just know that they are already big and that the moment of facing the reality is coming. 

I warned that Russians are very wrong people to fuck with when it comes to war and survival of the nation--this is more than millennium of conditioning by non-stop wars. It is genetic and they don't teach it in the Western universities. Certainly not in the International Relations departments in Ivy League schools for good ol' boys and girls, not that there are qualified people to teach the real foreign policy there, anyway.

Cleaning My Monitors...

 ... you know, coffee spraying on monitors, me falling off the chair. Things of this nature due to this:

"The Bradley infantry fighting vehicle is the exact type of vehicle the Ukrainians need," said Mick Mulroy, former deputy assistant secretary of defense and ABC News contributor. "There are many available, they are relatively easy to learn to operate effectively." While the Bradley does not offer the same protection as a tank, it can still be used to take out Russian tanks and armored personnel carriers, according to Mulroy.

No, really, do they still think in Pentagon that Bradley with its 25-mm Bushmaster and two obsolete BGM-71 TOW ATGMs has a chance on the modern battlefield against something like T-72B3(M), let alone T-90M? These are the tanks which now dominate the battlefield in 404 and that is not even all of the story. Practically all Russian tanks fire not just very respectable guns but also a very nasty 5 km range ATGM called Reflex, not to mention the fact that Russian tank force now has a very good WALL-E looking sidekick known as BMPT Terminator Tank Support Vehicle. And this monster apart from outgunning Bradley with 2 30-mm guns, carries four Ataka ATGMs which are not only supersonic but outrange TOW dramatically.  

Well, one doesn't have to be a professional tank officer to recognize what these Bradleys will face. But then again, Bradley is a cover story for Pentagon, because the larger issue, of course, was a discussion on the delivery of M1 Abrams tanks to 404. 

As WaPo explained, there are some "minor" technical issues for Abrams tanks because they weight in excess of 55 tons, consume enormous amounts of fuel and are prone to... well, how to put it politely--breaking down. Obviously, as is natural for US media and Pentagon, they explained that those tanks are also extremely complex and require a very specialized technical service. In other words, Ukies are on a lower development level to handle such an amazing equipment;)) Hey, I am just quoting here, alright? Translating into normal human language it means M1 Abrams is not designed to fight a serious enemy and the US will rather blame 100% guaranteed failure of Bradleys on their improper use by Kiev Regime, than see M1 Abrams burning on the battlefield in industrial quantities, especially with those pesky Russian Air Force capable to attack them beyond whatever the feeble air defense they may have. Remember this? 

This damn thing performed brilliantly in Syria and has an insane range flying at more than M=4+.  Modern Russian helicopters carry these lovely weapons and it is specifically designed to kill any armor on the battlefield. Well, that's the modern battlefield for ya. So, the PR campaign must be ran tightly in the West, otherwise how can one maintain this myth about magical American weapons which all, without exception, have become, indeed, "game changers" insofar as their reputation goes, meaning an atrocious lack of combat effectiveness and being not fit for the real war. 

Do they know this in Pentagon? Some, certainly, do. Do not expect this knowledge trickle down to State Department, because a mounting empirical evidence testifies in favor of those people having no clue about operational and technological aspects of modern warfare and still, probably, waiting for Maverick to fly his F-14 into Russian Air Space and kill all those nasty Rooskies, who decided to expose operational and technological weakness of the US military of which I warned for many years, specifically pointing out that the danger here is not American strength but weakness. 

As the British media and human sewer The Sun laments:

The warship - armed with new Mach 9 hypersonic Zircon nuclear missiles - is leading a Russian naval task force in a show of strength to the West as the Ukraine war rages on. Mad Vlad beamed as he announced "an important, if not momentous, event" as the vessel embarked on its mission. "This time the ship is equipped with the latest hypersonic missile system - 'Zircon' - which has no analogues," he said. "As I said, it has no equivalent in any country in the world.

The amount of copium there is insane, but I am sure their "sources close to Kremlin" will soon confirm to them that Vladimir Putin again fell down the stairs and soiled his pants, again. Meanwhile, "enjoy" the copium BS from fanboys from UK. 

Even the title of the post is BS--Gorshkov's deployment has nothing to do with 404. It is for frying a much bigger fish than 404. But hey, what do I know. Enjoy the minute of military porn.