Russia is struggling to attract new recruits for its army, a U.S. official says.
Source: New York Times
“The Russians are performing so poorly that the news from Kharkiv Province has inspired many Russian volunteers to refuse combat,” the official said, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the status of Russia’s war in Ukraine, adding that the leader of the Wagner Group, a private military company with ties to the Kremlin, had been seen in videos posted on social media asking Russian prisoners, Tajiks, Belarusians and Armenians to join the fight in Ukraine.
“We believe this is part of Wagner’s campaign to recruit over 1,500 convicted felons,” the official said. “But many are refusing.”
Last week, a video posted online and analyzed by The New York Times showed the Wagner Group promising convicts that they would be released from prison in return for a six-month combat tour in Ukraine. It is unclear when the video was filmed.
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/09/19/world/ukraine-russia-war/russia-is-struggling-to-attract-new-recruits-for-its-army-a-us-official-says
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
PortTack
(35,815 posts)To Ukraine to fight…all lies
OnlinePoker
(6,099 posts)Here's the BBC report with the actual video. They've cut out a bunch I saw on another version on the weekend. The BBC report shows that they aren't mincing words, either..."If you serve six months (in Wagner), you are free," he said. But he warned potential recruits against desertion and said "if you arrive in Ukraine and decide it's not for you, we will execute you".
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62911618
PortTack
(35,815 posts)
nycbos
(6,690 posts)I know they're more used to the old Soviet style equipment.
I know we have been training them to use some of our weaponry.
sakabatou
(45,798 posts)Other vehicles, I'm sure, but not tanks.
GB_RN
(3,514 posts)We have not. My understanding is, from ex-military guys over on Daily Kos who post regular Ukraine updates, the training program on the M1 Abrams, just to drive, shoot, etc, is about 6 months. That does not include maintaining it. Maintenance is months more. However, that being said, based on the operations training timeline, there has been enough time to train up crews to run the things and get them out to the front some time in the near future, but you'd have no one on their team who could repair them in the field.
As mentioned below, the Russian tanks have an autoloader feature, which reduces the crew to three. This is also what causes the damned things to literally blow off the top when hit. Because the ammunition is autofed, and the mechanism is in the crew cabin, the turret must remain open to the crew cabin. When the tank is hit, and the ammo goes up, it literally blows the turret off. Whereas in the Abrams, the ammunition is kept in the crew section, in a compartment that will blow out the back of the tank if it's hit, venting the explosion away from the crew compartment. Additionally, because the rounds are hand fed to the gunner, the turret is sealed off from the crew cabin between each shot (or is supposed to be).
The Russian tanks' targeting system is not as good as the M1's either. Our tanks can shoot pretty well while moving. In a stand up fight, or in a running battle, the M1 would kick the crap out of theirs.
Additional tidbits: We have never lost an M1 Abrams to enemy fire (the Iraqis did, to some ISIS bombs, though). M1s have also stood up to direct frontal hits from accidental friendly fire from other tanks.
You said : “ We have never lost an M1 Abrams to enemy fire (the Iraqis did, to some ISIS bombs, though). M1s have also stood up to direct frontal hits from accidental friendly fire from other tanks.”
That was true before we invaded Iraq. That is no longer true. We lost multiple M-1’s in Iraq, along with their crews.
We lost 23 M1 tanks in Iraq, damaged or destroyed, including seven destroyed by friendly fire.
GB_RN
(3,514 posts)I posted based on information I was aware of. Those sources were obviously outdated.🤷♂️
getagrip_already
(17,802 posts)Jet fuel as opposed to diesel. Which is why they want the german tanks.
That means a completely new logistics capability. I don't know if any of the soviet style vehicles are multi-fuel, so that means new delivery systems.
GB_RN
(3,514 posts)I knew they used jet fuel for that turbine engine, I just didn’t think about it when I was writing up my post. Thanks for the tactful reminder!
James48
(5,101 posts)M1 Abram tanks are multifuel.
They work just fine on diesel fuel.
Or gasoline
Or Jet A
Or JP fuel of any grade
Or Marine diesel
It was intentionally built for a wide variety of fuel type. Hell, you can run it in vodka if you have enough.
getagrip_already
(17,802 posts)I don't know the m1 engine specifically, but other multi-fuel engines have a preferred fuel type. While they can run on others, they will need service much quicker and produce less power.
Fine in emergencies, but not as every day fuel.
keithbvadu2
(40,915 posts)
Aristus
(71,715 posts)for the Ukrainian tankers to just continue using their own tanks and captured Russian tanks. They use the same models of tanks; basically the variants of the old T-64 platform, which shares characteristics with every subsequent model, such as the T-72, T-80, and T-90.
Switching to a completely different platform such as the Abrams series is more that just learning the nuts and bolts of crewing a tank, such as driving it, loading the main gun, and maintaining secondary systems such as the radios and crew machine guns.
The Russian-built tanks have an automatic loader for the main gun, reducing the crew to three. So every dynamic of operating a tank is different; maintaining the tracks, the main gun, boresighting the optics, learning to be a cohesive fire-team, the works.
It would be very difficult to switch tanks in mid-war.
After we help Ukraine win we should train them on how to use our tanks, fly our planes etc.
James48
(5,101 posts)The M1 isn’t that difficult to learn, and the Ukrainians are especially quick students. They’ve been able to effectively learn MLRS/HIMARS systems, M-777 Artillery, and are working on various helicopter and aircraft solutions now.
Yes, it would take sone time to get them up to speed on the M-1. I hesitate to mention there are already a number of folks on the ground in Ukraine who are former US tankers and can be relied upon to help train the crews quickly. I think the major issues would be more along the lines of getting 100+ Abrams tanks into position without bringing down a lot of Russian air on them. Yes, it may take a few months to train - but this war isn’t going to be over anytime soon.
underpants
(195,096 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 20, 2022, 08:37 AM - Edit history (1)
I always understood that we paid for exclusivity. I don’t think M-1’s are sold to anyone else but I could be wrong.
I was in a unit with tanks and Bradley’s. It always stuck me as odd that the lowest ranking crew member had the incredibly important task of loading. Even 30’s years ago I thought the loader was the one human element in an M-1 that could NOT be replaced through automation. They hav elf feeders huh? Didn’t know that.
The M-1 isn’t that hard to learn. We had Scouts serving as loaders because we were short on tankers. Some never served in a Bradley. They picked it up very quickly. They’d have to phase in any Western type tank I would guess. Stick with what they know for the lost part as you said.
Aristus
(71,715 posts)He wanted live-fire-experienced crewmen in the turret, including the loader; a policy I think made a lot of sense. Our battalion consistently shot very high scores in live-fire qualification.
My point about switching tanks for Ukrainians above wasn't about simply learning how to operate the tank. It was about the dynamics of a crew working together. That can take a lot longer, regardless of the tank model in question. Russian-built tanks have a crew of three, driver, gunner, and commander, with an auto-loader feeding the gun, as you mentioned. But the commander is often away from the tank, attending meetings of other officers and NCO's, planning, logistics, etc. This leaves the other two crew members to do all the maintenance. This is easier with a four-man crew, but like I pointed out above, the dynamics are totally different. A crew gets to know one another's rhythms, knowing the driver's quirks, knowing how the gunner wants the gun tube boresighted, how to pre-set the frequencies on the radios, etc. It's the intangible things that Ukrainian crewmembers would have to pick up quickly if they switch over to Western tanks.
Rhiannon12866
(250,685 posts)I saw it reported that they're even offering military service to incarcerated prisoners. 
IronLionZion
(50,848 posts)It's bonkers that they're all in on ground forces because they're so afraid of losing planes and ships. It's quite the opposite of the US.
NCjack
(10,297 posts)keithbvadu2
(40,915 posts)
blue-wave
(4,827 posts)two guys more than willing to join Putin's army, put 'em on the front line!!
maxsolomon
(38,256 posts)that's why they have conscription.
