Who are we going to go peer toe to peer toe with? Where? Why? We lost two small wars in less than 20 years. One as part of NATO for 11 years. Gone are the glory days of Bosnia, Kuwait, Sierra Leone and Kosovo.
Wikipedia claims that cricket was first played in Surrey as early as 1550.
That's cherry picking the first definitive reference. The three paragraphs prior:
Cricket was created during Saxon or Norman times by children living in the Weald, an area of dense woodlands and clearings in south-east England that lies across Kent and Sussex.[2] The first definite written reference is from the end of the 16th century.
There have been several speculations about the game's origins, including some that it was created in France or Flanders. The earliest of these speculative references is from 1300 and concerns the future King Edward II playing at "creag and other games" in both Westminster and Newenden. It has been suggested that "creag" was an Old English word for cricket, but expert opinion is that it was an early spelling of "craic", meaning "fun and games in general".[3]
It is generally believed that cricket survived as a children's game for many generations before it was increasingly taken up by adults around the beginning of the 17th century. Possibly cricket was derived from bowls, assuming bowls is the older sport, by the intervention of a batsman trying to stop the ball from reaching its target by hitting it away. Playing on sheep-grazed land or in clearings, the original implements may have been a matted lump of sheep's wool (or even a stone or a small lump of wood) as the ball; a stick or a crook or another farm tool as the bat; and a stool or a tree stump or a gate (e.g., a wicket gate) as the wicket.[4]
One can see that there are sources. The "craic" argument is "expert" nonsense, it deconstructs to
the future King Edward II playing at "fun and games in general and other games" in both Westminster and Newenden.
A story on the BBC website says thousands of young men are escaping from Ukraine to avoid being conscripted to fight against Russia. More evidence that there will be stalemate for the foreseeable future?
A story on the BBC website says thousands of young men are escaping from Ukraine to avoid being conscripted to fight against Russia. More evidence that there will be stalemate for the foreseeable future?
I'm guessing this is the article you're talking about. I'm not sure this represents evidence of a stalemate since this isn't a new development and it hasn't stopped Ukraine from making gains in places like Kherson or around Kharkiv.
Perhaps coincidentally the Financial Times had an article [ paywall ] yesterday detailing what seems to be a Ukrainian "beachhead" being established on the eastern bank of the Dniepro.
Ukrainian forces have established several fortified bridgeheads on the Russian-occupied left bank of the Dnipro river in their most significant territorial advance for weeks in their otherwise stalled counteroffensive.
Ukraine’s military confirmed the advances in a statement on Friday without naming where they were.
“The Ukrainian marines, in co-operation with other units of the defence forces, managed to gain a foothold on several bridgeheads,” read the statement.
Russia also acknowledged the Ukrainian presence for the first time. Vladimir Saldo, the Moscow-appointed governor of Russian-occupied Kherson province, said on Telegram that Ukrainian forces were in one area, near the village of Krynky — 18 miles north-east of Kherson city.
A western official said on Thursday that Ukraine had moved “elements of three brigades” to the Russian-occupied east bank of the river, and confirmed reports last week by Russian military bloggers that Ukraine has moved some vehicles across.
A brigade typically numbers 2,000 to 5,000 soldiers but the official said the Ukrainian contingent probably consisted of “hundreds”.
The western official said Russian forces had not been able to push them back and the Ukrainians had established a “significant foothold” in the area.
This is still tentative, but the fact that all sides are openly acknowledging it seems to indicate that Ukraine's presence established enough that rolling it back is unlikely in the short term.
We sponsored a Ukrainian family to come to the US at the beginning of the war. They have a young adult male who is draft age, I believe. I know he does not plan to go back.
Young adults have long avoided the draft if they could. In our civil war, rich kids paid for poor kids to go fight for them. Vietnam saw many young males head to Canada to avoid the draft. Most came back after amnesty was declared, but some stayed in Canada.
Fact is, a great-great grandfather left Germany to avoid being drafted into the Kaiser's army. His cousin was not so lucky.
Don't forget many Russian males fled to Georgia to avoid being drafted into Putin's army too, though Georgia would now like to see them move on.
You guys can hack it. You didn't lose in Basra and Helmand as we pathetically did.
...
But you did create ISIS in reaction. And you did lose Afghanistan in toto. A bridge too far since Sekunder at least. And let's not consider Somalia under Clinton. And not.
The T-90A is considered one of Russia's more advanced tanks, The most advanced tank for them is their T-90M. Seems like I remember people saying to watch out the T-90s are on their way. But since March 2023 only 3 have been destroyed. They just do not seem to be on the battlefield anymore.
Either Russia has withdrawn them, or they just do not exist in the numbers Russia claims to have.
Could it be the T-90s are just to dangerous for their crews?
The T-90A is considered one of Russia's more advanced tanks, The most advanced tank for them is their T-90M. Seems like I remember people saying to watch out the T-90s are on their way. But since March 2023 only 3 have been destroyed. They just do not seem to be on the battlefield anymore.
Either Russia has withdrawn them, or they just do not exist in the numbers Russia claims to have.
Could it be the T-90s are just to dangerous for their crews?
They're doing just fine without them. As are the Ukrainians without their Abrams.
For your information, as of October 16, 2023, there are 31 Abrams in Ukraine. It is a matter of developing the support structure needed to commit them to the battlefield. Source.
This doesn't answer questions about the T-90 specifically but a ridiculous amount of Russian armored fighting vehicles* have been lost in their attempt to take Avdiivka. The Ukrainians have lost some armor there too. Enthusiastic amateurs are enjoying themselves identifying the (mostly Russian) armored vehicles that have been lost in the battle there. Soldiers will usually recover the bodies of their fallen comrades, but they can't easily haul destroyed tanks off of an active battlefield and in this day of readily available satellite images there's a lot to work with even for non-government folks
Avdiivka seems to be the sunk cost fallacy put into military terms. The Russian plan was to encircle the city by taking high ground the the north and south of it. The northern wing of this plan succeeded but the southern prong of the fork was rebuffed by Ukrainian forces. Ever since then the Russians have been pouring more resources, particularly armored fighting vehicles, into the battle, apparently convinced that they're this close to success and the next big push will be the one that works.
* Yes, not all armored fighting vehicles are tanks and what exactly constitutes a tank is a matter of some debate.
They're doing just fine without them. As are the Ukrainians without their Abrams.
For your information, as of October 16, 2023, there are 31 Abrams in Ukraine. It is a matter of developing the support structure needed to commit them to the battlefield. Source.
I know that. And like the T-90A/Ms, they aren't being used.
They're doing just fine without them. As are the Ukrainians without their Abrams.
For your information, as of October 16, 2023, there are 31 Abrams in Ukraine. It is a matter of developing the support structure needed to commit them to the battlefield. Source.
I know that. And like the T-90A/Ms, they aren't being used.
Wanna bet which tank would win if they had a faceoff?
They're doing just fine without them. As are the Ukrainians without their Abrams.
For your information, as of October 16, 2023, there are 31 Abrams in Ukraine. It is a matter of developing the support structure needed to commit them to the battlefield. Source.
I know that. And like the T-90A/Ms, they aren't being used.
Wanna bet which tank would win if they had a faceoff?
I'm not sure what there is to be gained by 'This Tank is better than That Tank' schtick as there are other factors beyond which one has the thickest armour or biggest gun.
So far, Russian leadership hasn't been very impressive to say the least and that doesn't augur well for their longer term success. At the same time, it's not going to be easy to dislodge them and this thing will grind on and on until sooner or later some kind of negotiations will take place.
I don't foresee Russia overrunning the rest of Ukraine anytime soon, but then I don't see a Ukrainian counter offensive driving them back over the border either.
Meanwhile, the @Martin54 doomsday 'Trump will be re-elected and take the US out of NATO' and @Gramps49's naive 'A few more Abrams will turn the tide' posts will continue to ping pong back and forth.
Both sides will fight themselves to a stand-still. Then they will talk.
Because it's always the same. When you fire the first shot, no matter how right you feel, you have no idea who's going to die. You don't know whose children are going to scream and burn. How many hearts will be broken. How many lives shattered! How much blood will spill... before everybody does what they were ALWAYS going to have to do from the very beginning! SIT. DOWN. AND. TALK.
I'm not sure what there is to be gained by 'This Tank is better than That Tank' schtick as there are other factors beyond which one has the thickest armour or biggest gun.
So far, Russian leadership hasn't been very impressive to say the least and that doesn't augur well for their longer term success. At the same time, it's not going to be easy to dislodge them and this thing will grind on and on until sooner or later some kind of negotiations will take place.
I don't foresee Russia overrunning the rest of Ukraine anytime soon, but then I don't see a Ukrainian counter offensive driving them back over the border either.
Meanwhile, the @Martin54 doomsday 'Trump will be re-elected and take the US out of NATO' and @Gramps49's naive 'A few more Abrams will turn the tide' posts will continue to ping pong back and forth.
Both sides will fight themselves to a stand-still. Then they will talk.
We sort of do. Others sit on the net. The other pair are at a dynamic standstill, fighting on the spot, that will continue for a year until Trump wins and wins regardless of the war ending or not.
That is a contradiction. If he can't afford more, then he's at his limit. Logically then, if Ukraine keeps pushing, the more they will wear down Russian forces and the more territory they will gain.
Would the Ukrainian government be able to sell such a deal to their people? From the Ukrainians I know (I know, three people is a very small subset) and judging by their social media feeds, there's a significant number of people in Ukraine who would go with a "not a grain of Ukrainian soil in Russia" position. There are vast numbers of refugees from the occupied territories of Ukraine who would want to go home to Donbas or Crimea, but it wouldn't be home if it became part of Russia. And, many millions who have lost family and friends in the fight to regain that territory. A peace deal which doesn't include retaining the pre-2014 borders would be a massive cost to Ukraine.
That is a contradiction. If he can't afford more, then he's at his limit. Logically then, if Ukraine keeps pushing, the more they will wear down Russian forces and the more territory they will gain.
He can afford to defend what he's got. Not offend for more; anything more significant. He might be able to afford the blood and treasure to offend for Avdiika as he did Bakhmut. It seems he wants to spend all of his armour (400 units in Avdiika alone. In one week. Along with 6000 men; he's got prisons to empty) as it's no good for anything else. He obviously doesn't need them for defence. Ukraine is in the same position. They're pushing nowhere. A few rubber boats across the Dnipro notwithstanding. Have they closed that gap of a mile to Verbove in the past two months?
That is a contradiction. If he can't afford more, then he's at his limit. Logically then, if Ukraine keeps pushing, the more they will wear down Russian forces and the more territory they will gain.
Not necessarily, defence is (generally) easier than attack. So it's quite plausible that an army could defend existing territory without being in a position to take more. Not saying that this is true of Russia in Ukraine, but it isn't illogical.
@Gamma Gamaliel Don't forget the F16s. They will be in theatre by April, I believe.
I would hardly call my assertion of the Abrams tanks naive. I know the capabilities of both tanks and the Abrams is much better than the T90.
A big issue in any war is the motivation of the forces. Who wants to win? It is my estimation the Russian forces are suffering quite low morale. The Ukrainians are fighting to save their country. As long as the West can continue to supply the Ukrainians they will prevail, in my estimation.
There is also a question of how long Putin will remain in power. Assassination appears to be a Russian skill.
Is it? The last assassination attempt against a Russian leader (I think) was two attempts on Lenin's life in 1918. The last successful assassination of a Russian leader was Tsar Alexander II in 1881. For comparison, Americans have assassinated three presidents (Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy) since Alexander II's death and made a much larger number of unsuccessful attempts. While assassination in general may be a Russian skill, assassinating Russian heads of state seems outside their practiced skill set.
@Gamma Gamaliel Don't forget the F16s. They will be in theatre by April, I believe.
I would hardly call my assertion of the Abrams tanks naive. I know the capabilities of both tanks and the Abrams is much better than the T90.
A big issue in any war is the motivation of the forces. Who wants to win? It is my estimation the Russian forces are suffering quite low morale. The Ukrainians are fighting to save their country. As long as the West can continue to supply the Ukrainians they will prevail, in my estimation.
So you keep saying.
You've been predicting the imminent end to this conflict since it began.
I certainly accept that Russian morale is low and its military leadership has been lacklustre to say the least. And yes, given that the Ukrainians are determined to resist then eventually they are likely to pull through.
Nevertheless, as I think I've said before, Churchill is said to have observed that there are two mistakes that can be made in relation to Russia. We can either overestimate her or underestimate her.
I'm in a mid-way position on this one, somewhere between Martin's 'Trump will get back in. We're all doomed' and your constant sunny assertions that all we need are John Wayne and a few F16s and Abrams and all will be over by Christmas.
@Gamma Gamaliel Don't forget the F16s. They will be in theatre by April, I believe.
I would hardly call my assertion of the Abrams tanks naive. I know the capabilities of both tanks and the Abrams is much better than the T90.
A big issue in any war is the motivation of the forces. Who wants to win? It is my estimation the Russian forces are suffering quite low morale. The Ukrainians are fighting to save their country. As long as the West can continue to supply the Ukrainians they will prevail, in my estimation.
So you keep saying.
You've been predicting the imminent end to this conflict since it began.
I certainly accept that Russian morale is low and its military leadership has been lacklustre to say the least. And yes, given that the Ukrainians are determined to resist then eventually they are likely to pull through.
Nevertheless, as I think I've said before, Churchill is said to have observed that there are two mistakes that can be made in relation to Russia. We can either overestimate her or underestimate her.
I'm in a mid-way position on this one, somewhere between Martin's 'Trump will get back in. We're all doomed' and your constant sunny assertions that all we need are John Wayne and a few F16s and Abrams and all will be over by Christmas.
And what is that position exactly? There is no mid-way between reality and puerile fantasy. And who's doomed? Trump has covered his bets. And nothing can stop him, can it. Absolutely nothing. Bar some psephological calm sneaking in off Iceland for D-Day, as in the superb Turbulence by Giles Foden. The Russians have created an impregnable front whether he gets in or not, with low morale and lacklustre military leadership.
@Gamma Gamaliel Don't forget the F16s. They will be in theatre by April, I believe.
I would hardly call my assertion of the Abrams tanks naive. I know the capabilities of both tanks and the Abrams is much better than the T90.
A big issue in any war is the motivation of the forces. Who wants to win? It is my estimation the Russian forces are suffering quite low morale. The Ukrainians are fighting to save their country. As long as the West can continue to supply the Ukrainians they will prevail, in my estimation.
So you keep saying.
You've been predicting the imminent end to this conflict since it began.
I certainly accept that Russian morale is low and its military leadership has been lacklustre to say the least. And yes, given that the Ukrainians are determined to resist then eventually they are likely to pull through.
Nevertheless, as I think I've said before, Churchill is said to have observed that there are two mistakes that can be made in relation to Russia. We can either overestimate her or underestimate her.
I'm in a mid-way position on this one, somewhere between Martin's 'Trump will get back in. We're all doomed' and your constant sunny assertions that all we need are John Wayne and a few F16s and Abrams and all will be over by Christmas.
I never said it would be over by Christmas. It was Martin54 who said the battle would be over before winter set in. John Wayne is long dead. I have never mentioned his name.
Going to Churchill's statement, it certainly seemed Russia has underestimated what Ukraine was capable of, and overestimated what they were capable of.
I have been saying the West will need to continue to support the Ukrainians. At this point, the Republican lead House of Representatives do not want to spend any more money on Ukraine. That is what I worry about most. If our country is forced to cut its funding, what will the other allies do? I understand the United Kingdom and Germany are looking at austerity budgets. That does not bode well for Ukraine, I think.
@Gamma Gamaliel Don't forget the F16s. They will be in theatre by April, I believe.
I would hardly call my assertion of the Abrams tanks naive. I know the capabilities of both tanks and the Abrams is much better than the T90.
A big issue in any war is the motivation of the forces. Who wants to win? It is my estimation the Russian forces are suffering quite low morale. The Ukrainians are fighting to save their country. As long as the West can continue to supply the Ukrainians they will prevail, in my estimation.
So you keep saying.
You've been predicting the imminent end to this conflict since it began.
I certainly accept that Russian morale is low and its military leadership has been lacklustre to say the least. And yes, given that the Ukrainians are determined to resist then eventually they are likely to pull through.
Nevertheless, as I think I've said before, Churchill is said to have observed that there are two mistakes that can be made in relation to Russia. We can either overestimate her or underestimate her.
I'm in a mid-way position on this one, somewhere between Martin's 'Trump will get back in. We're all doomed' and your constant sunny assertions that all we need are John Wayne and a few F16s and Abrams and all will be over by Christmas.
I never said it would be over by Christmas. It was Martin54 who said the battle would be over before winter set in. ...
I understand the United Kingdom and Germany are looking at austerity budgets. That does not bode well for Ukraine, I think.
So @Gamma Gamaliel , what is your mid-way position on this one, somewhere between your 'Martin's 'Trump will get back in. We're all doomed'' and your ironic 'Gramps49's 'constant sunny assertions that all we need are John Wayne and a few F16s and Abrams and all will be over by Christmas'? What does that look like?
Turns out the Abrams tank as a problem that could render them useless if the Ukrainian crews don't perform a critical maintenance task. The filters on the turbines have to be cleared every 12 hours. The turbines suck in a lot of air. If the dust and debris in the air gets into the turbines, they will seize up. Tank crews will have to blow back the filters every 12 hours to clear them. This can be done in the middle of a battle, but the question is will the Ukrainian crews remember to do that. Details here.
Comments
List all our peers. Remove our allies. Pick one of the remainder.
You guys can hack it. You didn't lose in Basra and Helmand as we pathetically did.
What remainder?
France. It's always France eventually.
Especially in rugby.
We beat the French at cricket the last time it was included in the Olympic Games.
That's cherry picking the first definitive reference. The three paragraphs prior:
One can see that there are sources. The "craic" argument is "expert" nonsense, it deconstructs to
So the last time we beat the French... well it was the English actually, at cricket was 123 years ago.
I'm guessing this is the article you're talking about. I'm not sure this represents evidence of a stalemate since this isn't a new development and it hasn't stopped Ukraine from making gains in places like Kherson or around Kharkiv.
Perhaps coincidentally the Financial Times had an article [ paywall ] yesterday detailing what seems to be a Ukrainian "beachhead" being established on the eastern bank of the Dniepro.
This is still tentative, but the fact that all sides are openly acknowledging it seems to indicate that Ukraine's presence established enough that rolling it back is unlikely in the short term.
Young adults have long avoided the draft if they could. In our civil war, rich kids paid for poor kids to go fight for them. Vietnam saw many young males head to Canada to avoid the draft. Most came back after amnesty was declared, but some stayed in Canada.
Fact is, a great-great grandfather left Germany to avoid being drafted into the Kaiser's army. His cousin was not so lucky.
Don't forget many Russian males fled to Georgia to avoid being drafted into Putin's army too, though Georgia would now like to see them move on.
It is the way of the world.
But you did create ISIS in reaction. And you did lose Afghanistan in toto. A bridge too far since Sekunder at least. And let's not consider Somalia under Clinton. And not.
The T-90A is considered one of Russia's more advanced tanks, The most advanced tank for them is their T-90M. Seems like I remember people saying to watch out the T-90s are on their way. But since March 2023 only 3 have been destroyed. They just do not seem to be on the battlefield anymore.
Either Russia has withdrawn them, or they just do not exist in the numbers Russia claims to have.
Could it be the T-90s are just to dangerous for their crews?
Source
More like much Russian equipment, they were fueled by lies and dreams.
The last May 9th Victory Day parade in Moscow only had one tank. ONE lonely tank.
For your information, as of October 16, 2023, there are 31 Abrams in Ukraine. It is a matter of developing the support structure needed to commit them to the battlefield. Source.
Avdiivka.
This doesn't answer questions about the T-90 specifically but a ridiculous amount of Russian armored fighting vehicles* have been lost in their attempt to take Avdiivka. The Ukrainians have lost some armor there too. Enthusiastic amateurs are enjoying themselves identifying the (mostly Russian) armored vehicles that have been lost in the battle there. Soldiers will usually recover the bodies of their fallen comrades, but they can't easily haul destroyed tanks off of an active battlefield and in this day of readily available satellite images there's a lot to work with even for non-government folks
Avdiivka seems to be the sunk cost fallacy put into military terms. The Russian plan was to encircle the city by taking high ground the the north and south of it. The northern wing of this plan succeeded but the southern prong of the fork was rebuffed by Ukrainian forces. Ever since then the Russians have been pouring more resources, particularly armored fighting vehicles, into the battle, apparently convinced that they're this close to success and the next big push will be the one that works.
* Yes, not all armored fighting vehicles are tanks and what exactly constitutes a tank is a matter of some debate.
I know that. And like the T-90A/Ms, they aren't being used.
Wanna bet which tank would win if they had a faceoff?
Aren't we a couple of kids.
I'm not sure what there is to be gained by 'This Tank is better than That Tank' schtick as there are other factors beyond which one has the thickest armour or biggest gun.
So far, Russian leadership hasn't been very impressive to say the least and that doesn't augur well for their longer term success. At the same time, it's not going to be easy to dislodge them and this thing will grind on and on until sooner or later some kind of negotiations will take place.
I don't foresee Russia overrunning the rest of Ukraine anytime soon, but then I don't see a Ukrainian counter offensive driving them back over the border either.
Meanwhile, the @Martin54 doomsday 'Trump will be re-elected and take the US out of NATO' and @Gramps49's naive 'A few more Abrams will turn the tide' posts will continue to ping pong back and forth.
Both sides will fight themselves to a stand-still. Then they will talk.
The Doctor, "The Zygon Inversion" (2015).
We sort of do. Others sit on the net. The other pair are at a dynamic standstill, fighting on the spot, that will continue for a year until Trump wins and wins regardless of the war ending or not.
What he's got. He can't afford more.
He can afford to defend what he's got. Not offend for more; anything more significant. He might be able to afford the blood and treasure to offend for Avdiika as he did Bakhmut. It seems he wants to spend all of his armour (400 units in Avdiika alone. In one week. Along with 6000 men; he's got prisons to empty) as it's no good for anything else. He obviously doesn't need them for defence. Ukraine is in the same position. They're pushing nowhere. A few rubber boats across the Dnipro notwithstanding. Have they closed that gap of a mile to Verbove in the past two months?
Not necessarily, defence is (generally) easier than attack. So it's quite plausible that an army could defend existing territory without being in a position to take more. Not saying that this is true of Russia in Ukraine, but it isn't illogical.
I would hardly call my assertion of the Abrams tanks naive. I know the capabilities of both tanks and the Abrams is much better than the T90.
A big issue in any war is the motivation of the forces. Who wants to win? It is my estimation the Russian forces are suffering quite low morale. The Ukrainians are fighting to save their country. As long as the West can continue to supply the Ukrainians they will prevail, in my estimation.
Is it? The last assassination attempt against a Russian leader (I think) was two attempts on Lenin's life in 1918. The last successful assassination of a Russian leader was Tsar Alexander II in 1881. For comparison, Americans have assassinated three presidents (Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy) since Alexander II's death and made a much larger number of unsuccessful attempts. While assassination in general may be a Russian skill, assassinating Russian heads of state seems outside their practiced skill set.
So you keep saying.
You've been predicting the imminent end to this conflict since it began.
I certainly accept that Russian morale is low and its military leadership has been lacklustre to say the least. And yes, given that the Ukrainians are determined to resist then eventually they are likely to pull through.
Nevertheless, as I think I've said before, Churchill is said to have observed that there are two mistakes that can be made in relation to Russia. We can either overestimate her or underestimate her.
I'm in a mid-way position on this one, somewhere between Martin's 'Trump will get back in. We're all doomed' and your constant sunny assertions that all we need are John Wayne and a few F16s and Abrams and all will be over by Christmas.
And what is that position exactly? There is no mid-way between reality and puerile fantasy. And who's doomed? Trump has covered his bets. And nothing can stop him, can it. Absolutely nothing. Bar some psephological calm sneaking in off Iceland for D-Day, as in the superb Turbulence by Giles Foden. The Russians have created an impregnable front whether he gets in or not, with low morale and lacklustre military leadership.
I never said it would be over by Christmas. It was Martin54 who said the battle would be over before winter set in. John Wayne is long dead. I have never mentioned his name.
Going to Churchill's statement, it certainly seemed Russia has underestimated what Ukraine was capable of, and overestimated what they were capable of.
I have been saying the West will need to continue to support the Ukrainians. At this point, the Republican lead House of Representatives do not want to spend any more money on Ukraine. That is what I worry about most. If our country is forced to cut its funding, what will the other allies do? I understand the United Kingdom and Germany are looking at austerity budgets. That does not bode well for Ukraine, I think.
Links? I found one.
Well, if it's true, in this case it would be a good thing.
As was my comments about F16s.
Turns out the Abrams tank as a problem that could render them useless if the Ukrainian crews don't perform a critical maintenance task. The filters on the turbines have to be cleared every 12 hours. The turbines suck in a lot of air. If the dust and debris in the air gets into the turbines, they will seize up. Tank crews will have to blow back the filters every 12 hours to clear them. This can be done in the middle of a battle, but the question is will the Ukrainian crews remember to do that. Details here.
I am surprised no one mentioned this before now.