Germany Says 'Nein' On Tanks At Allies' Big Ramstein Meeting

https://www.zerohedge.com/military/...-big-ramstein-meeting-face-zelenskys-pleading

Whoops, despite clown elensky's pleads and scripted beggings, it seems the Germans don't want to poke the bear so-much-so they can't get that cheap gas somewhere down the road. The possibility of German-made tanks on Russian soil is a big no-no....even the Germans understand this. So here we are....support waning for the nazi-types in ukie land....the final chapter already written....just a matter of time.

From the article:

"Today, we can all not yet say when a decision will be made about Leopard and what this decision will look like," German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said at the end of the Ramstein Air Base meeting.

Amid accusations that Germany is waffling and thus weakening Western allies' resolve, Pistorius continued, "We are not really hesitating we are just very carefully balancing all the pros and contra [cons] — we are not talking just about delivering anything to anybody, this is a new kind of measure we would choose, so we have to be careful because we have a duty to look carefully and intensively at what might be the consequences for anybody in that conflict."

While there was agreement to boost military aid to Ukraine among the allies gathered for the meeting, CNBC underscores that "Germany wavered on further EU tank deliveries despite mounting calls from Kyiv and fellow allies."

The German defense minister continued, according to the remarks translated by CNBC:

"I must say there is very clearly no unanimous opinion. The impression that has occasionally been made that there is a closed coalition and Germany stands in the way of this is wrong. There are many allies who say we share the opinion that I explained here today again, there are good reasons for the delivery and there are good reasons against it."

 

They're not giving the real reason, but if I were to guess, it may have to do with losing proprietary technology that is part of the Leopards. Once you give those tanks to Ukraine, some of them will end up in Russian, Chinese, and other nation's hands, or at least the technology will. It's something NATO has to think about. Every new weapon system given to the Ukrainians is going to make it's way into Russian and Chinese hands.

 

Zero hedge is as credible as toilet paper.

 

Zero Hedge .... how about the fake news you love CNN?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/19/politics/us-germany-ukraine-tanks-weapons/index.html

New York Time fake news?

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/01/20/world/russia-ukraine-news

seems the historic nazis don't want their tanks given to the new nazis

 

https://twitter.com/luliiaMendel/status/1616564457026777088?ref_src=twsrc^tf

Ukrainian tankers will be trained on Leopards.

Only a matter of time Bill.....im sure Germans holding talks with Ukraine defense ministers....it's not a matter of if....but when. Bill

How come vatniks get so squirmy every time .....German tanks....get mentioned? Is it a case of deja vu from back in the day.....old memories of Panthers,Tigers,King Tigers,Jagdtigers,Maus,E100, Nashorns,Hummels,88 Flak guns,?....Bill....ya think?

I understand lotsa Wankers(ooops Wagners), got schwacked here? Like close to 300? Are they still making Ladas for dead conscripts families?....or just bringing cakes and biscuits to their doors? Asking for a buddy.

https://twitter.com/NewVoiceUkraine/status/1616393956383662081?ref_src=twsrc^tf

 

Why is it that we can always find ur sources news making Russia look good on "lamestream media", but "lamestream" media's news reflecting bad on Russia is never on your goto news sites?

 

Show one lame stream media that makes Russia look good. Be my guest. You're more than welcome to keep gobbling up fake news. You don't like facts, so what's the point of showing the truth?

 

What "facts"?....Bill?

 

lol, more Russian propaganda

 

I feel like this is yet another thread that will age badly...and probably fairly quickly.

 

I doubt that is the reason, especially in light of the other tech that has been sent already. The PzH 2000 is a highly sophisticated system that outclasses any of Russia's artillery systems, for instance. The US is also sending advanced systems that could similarly be captured, but it has not stopped us.

My guess is that they're still nervous about public opinion in Germany and about how Putler may react to their sending main battle tanks, a more offensive capability than anything else Germany has so far sent.

 

My understanding is that public opinion in Germany is still strongly against sending tanks. I suspect it will be easier to sign off on others sending them. That would be plenty. Poland is just itching to send tanks and might call Germany's bluff & just do it. They are going to get rid of their Leos anyway.

 

By the way, German tanks suck. Flintlocks compared to the M1. Only the Brits even TRY to keep up with us. Look at the German antitank NLAW... very sad next to our JAVELIN.

 

Sophisticated tanks burn just like the others.

 

Actually, that is not true at all and shows your technical ignorance. Tanks don't burn... they are generally made of steel, and steel does not burn. Bradley Fighting Vehicles are made of aluminum and do, indeed, burn. The first day I was in Iraq we drove past a thing that looked like a puddle of silver with an engine in it. It was actually a Bradley that had been hit. It burned, but the steel engine remained.

In recent years, most modern countries have outfitted their tanks with reactive ("Chiboam") armor elements. In WWII, tanks fired simple explosive shells since armor was nothing more than simple steel of various thicknesses. After that came Explosive shells that had an open, conical, explosive that "focused" the explosion ahead of the shell into the armor. Later came a "tandem" technology that adjusted the focal point of that explosion with more accuracy.

Meanwhile, armor itself was being improved. It started with harder and thicker steel until it became today's superhard "DU" steel. DU stands for "depleted uranium". The armor is so hard that it cannot be penetrated by traditional anti-tank rounds. In response, we developed DU SABOT rounds which are essentially diamond-hard "darts" that can penetrate any known armor. They are not explosive in any way, but their kinetic energy transfers to the target, making anything loose inside (fire extinguisher, wrench, helmets, etc) missiles inside the tank. Pictures of SABOT round effects from Desert Storm show Iraqi tanks with one small hole in the front and one small hole from the "dart" exiting out the back... and the tank destroyed.

The reason we were so successful in Desert Storm is that our SABOT rounds were devastating. In addition, an M1 tank can fire on the move. Few tanks in the world can do that still. M1 tanks have a very sophisticated "stabilized optic" architecture which allow firing on the move. Captain McMasters, later LTG McMasters of White House staff fame, led a task force of 28 M1 tanks and Bradleys against an entire division of Sadaam's Army, a division of 300 tanks. Any normal guy would have pulled back and asked for an air strike. He attacked. He had removed the "governors" from his tanks, allowing them to move up to 60 mph. His tanks attacked, bouncing off sand dunes, firing all the while. When all was said and done, he had defeated the Iraqi's in the "Battle of '73 Easting" and lost only one Bradley.

Today, the M1 remains the premier tank in the world. Its armor is not invulnerable, but its better than any other tank in the world.

Meanwhile, we have developed game changing weapons to defeat enemy armor like JAVELIN. Javelin is a fire and forget weapon. Put the target in your sights and piull the trigger. That's it. GO. Javelin has a TV camera in its nose that focuses on some man-made (not natural) thing on the target, like a straight line or a right angle, and it GUIDES ITSELF to the target. It FOLLOWS the target and hits it ON THE MOVE. Meanwhile, the gunner is long gone. This is a game changer. Last generation weapons required the gunner to track the target as it moved until it was hit... things like TOW and DRAGON. Our tanks are league leaders annd so are our anti-tank weapons.

Meanwhile I was amazed to find that our NATO allies are still using outdated technology with an anti-tank weapon called NLAWS. Its really not much better that a WWII era "bazooka". Its got a limited range and is nothing more than a bullet. If the target moves erratically (which most folks being shot at do)... its worthless.

So your comment that "Sophisticated tanks burn just like the others" is about 50 years out of date.

 

The excuse: "We have to count our leopards first ...." is absolutely ridiculous.

 

Very informative post. Cheers.

So what, may I ask protects the Bradleys? Are they also able to fire on the move? Why did you only lose one against Saddams army - if as you say they are made of aluminium.

 

New German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius with his wife.


I wonder what the name of the wife of the German Ministry of Defense is? Natasha?

 

Here's another account. 9 Abrams & 12 Bradleys vs 25 Iraqi tanks, 16 personnel carriers, and 30 trucks without a single US loss.

https://www.businessinsider.com/mcmaster-73-easting-tank-battle-2017-2

I can see now why they don't want to send Abrams. Too good. I imagine Putin would just battlefield nuke or missile the cities.

 

@AARguy do you know why Bradleys are tank killers? Their main weapon seems to be a large bore machine gun.

 

We lost more than one Bradley against Sadaam... I only mentioned the one that I saw. I didn't see them all. Bradleys do not have "stabilized optics". Their 20mm gun is a rapid fire gun... and a good one. It fires like a machine gun so it can adjust fire rapidly. But it doesn't kill tanks. Their TOW missile does.

 

When i was a young Captain at TRADOC I was assigned as part of a team to analyze how Captain McMasters beat the hell out of an Iraqi Division of 300 tanks with a Task Force of 26 vehicles. We still study the Battle of 73 Easting today.

 

That isn't true at all. Bradleys have a 20mm Bushmaster gun that isn't much use against tanks. It has a TOW missile launcher that is a Viet Nam era tank killing missile that is now mostly obsolete since it requires the gunner to track the target to detonation. The JAVLIN allows the the gunner to "fire and forget". Bradley was essentially replaced with the new STRYKER vehicle... and now a new generation is in the mill.

 

I doubt that any of the offensive equipment being sent to Ukraine is equipped with the most advanced technology the donating country has. Much too risky. Even the defensive equipment will lack some of the higher spec technology

It will still be more advanced than anything Russia has. Unfortunately Russia is using WW2 tactics of long range bombing where there is little defense agsinst. Much cheaper than the technology we are sending

 

It depends. The HIMARS stuff we send them fires the same deadly round as our ATACMS. Its just able to be mounted on any truck, so it isn't outfitted with the same targeting accuracy and simplicity. A STINGER... is a STINGER in anyone's hands. 155mm artillery rounds are... 15mm artillery rounds.