but not as weapon systems.
Conveniently, they would be completely ineffective as weapon systems – beyond shooting up some tribe around the Amazon 
They will support systems in the original country of purchase. They will not however allow it to be delivered to third countries.
The lesson learnt remains the same: a near-useless product, limited to training, useless for a war.
But there must be more to it. There must be a time limit on this embargo. The Gepart was scrapped by Germany in 2010 and perhaps the Swiss embargo had lapsed by then, so Germany could ship its ammo stock to Ukraine.
I bet there is real frenzy in the background, now that it is obvious that Ukraine will not cave in the desired “few days”, the eyes of the world are on CH and DE, and Norway (and presumably others) can make the ammo if they get a dimensioned drawing, which can’t be rocket science
neutral countries
There never were any.
Neutrality is just pretending to be neutral while selling stuff (and providing confidential banking and bank vault services) to the neighbour with the biggest stick
Peter wrote:
can make the ammo if they get a dimensioned drawing
It’s not about dimensions. It’s standard NATO dimensions. It’s the internals; fuse mechanism, type of explosives, shape of explosives, the procedures in production, chemistry, metals etc. There are several places this can be made expect Norway. Spain is one, and I think also Brazil or Argentina. For this to be done however, orders have to be placed and specs have to be communicated. To me this looks more and more like some very odd propaganda or something from the Germans. The Gepard is good perhaps, but worth exactly zero without ammunition. It also has to be maintained. They are old systems destined for scrapping. Things are usually scrapped when maintenance cost starts to go through the roof. In the mean time we know what works against Russian missiles, aircraft and drones. None of that is old scrap, but all the newest tech, and is supplied with ammunition/missiles for as long as it takes.
172driver wrote:
The sad thing is that any new treaties will be written with the blood of the Ukrainians.
Perhaps. Things are changing though. When this is over, Ukraine is armed to it’s teeth, and with a very good relation to the USA and NATO. Poland and the Baltic states are also arming, and let’s not forget Sweden and Finland in NATO. Ukraine is likely to come out of this rather favorable in the long run. It’s a big country, lots of people and lots of industry and natural recourses. All sorts of things can happen though (and probably will )
Peter wrote:
in the desired “few days”
This is something that you are stating repeatedly, but I must have missed that. Do you have any references to EU leaders having desired Ukraine to surrender quickly?
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Not quite. They will support systems in the original country of purchase. They will not however allow it to be delivered to third countries.
Not sure about that. The Swiss law forbids exporting to countries involved in an internal or international conflict, see https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1998/794_794_794/en#art_22_a . Maybe it is a question of interpretation, but would any importing country want to bet their defence capabilities on some possible interpretation of the law, which may change in the future?
As to manufacturing the munitions in other countries, that should be doable, but will take time. Getting the correct designs / specifications, setting up a production line, manufacturing and delivering them. The war may (hopefully) be over by then.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Do you have any references to EU leaders having desired Ukraine to surrender quickly?
I think perhaps what the majority expected (including Russia) was Russia would simply run over Ukraine in no-time. That didn’t happen at all, because they started with light armored vehicles that Ukraine just shot down. Except artillery and cruise missiles, the Russian forces looks to be 100% useless. That is from top to bottom. Inflow of material from the west rendered the Russian air force useless, and perhaps it didn’t have any teeth to start with either.
What very few had taken into account, and certainly not Russia, was that the entire Ukraine population was from the very start 100% aimed at fighting off the Russian armed forces. “Know your enemy” seems to be lost on Putin. This is very similar to when Russia invaded Finland (tried to) in the early 40s.
Do you have any references to EU leaders having desired Ukraine to surrender quickly?
Lots of countries around the world were thus hoping, EU and non EU. Most of the world is non EU. Most of the 3rd World loves Russia because they fight the Great Satan. Business as usual by the summer. Russians back on the yacht charter circuit; perhaps the only change being they would have to rent the (usually Ukrainian) girls from somewhere else (and there is an infinite number of places).
The Swiss law forbids exporting to countries involved in an internal or international conflict,
How come anybody was buying armaments from Switzerland?
Perhaps almost nobody reads the small print? I am guilty of that too at work… got a legal case running right now where a supplier’s small print enables them to increase prices to any level whatsoever, prior to delivery
Perhaps with the USA guaranteeing European security, there would never be a war in Europe after 1945.
They are old systems destined for scrapping
Well, for sure, Ukraine got the old junk first from some donors. The Gepard clearly won’t do supersonic jets but is quite a cost effective way to shoot down cheap stuff which is very expensive to do with SAMs. One of the operators said he needs just 3 shells on average to shoot down an Iranian suicide drone. That Norwegian firm never posted their price list but that’s probably about 300 quid
Airborne_Again wrote:
This is something that you are stating repeatedly, but I must have missed that. Do you have any references to EU leaders having desired Ukraine to surrender quickly?
I’m pretty sure that given the binary choice – Ukraine folds early and Russia installs a puppet government versus war that drags on for years – most EU leaders would have preferred the former.
What difference does it make to them whether Ukraine is under Russia’s control or not? With a quick Russian win the whole thing is done and dusted before anyone can say “sanctions” and the EU can keep buying cheap Russian gas, enjoy oligarch’s money swirling around their economies, etc.
The way it’s turned out, EU leaders have to face up to the fact that Russia is an enemy. Given that most EU countries have no serious large-scale military capability, that’s a rather uncomfortable reality. The reliance on the US was a lot more comfortable when people were able to make a persuasive (though incorrect) argument that reliance wasn’t a big deal because there wasn’t really any threat anyway.
Peter wrote:
Lots of countries around the world were thus hoping, EU and non EU. Most of the world is non EU.
Possibly, but now we’re talking about Europe. Is this only your feeling or do you have actual statements to back it up?
It is actually a sincere question. You may well be right, but I can’t recall having read or heard anything in that direction except from you.
Peter wrote:
One of the operators said he needs just 3 shells on average to shoot down an Iranian suicide drone
Probably, and it for sure cannot use more of them, or they run out of ammunition It’s the ammunition that is the special thing about it by the looks of it, maybe some sort of proximity fuse, or on the fly programmable? It’s basically an automatic, radar driven, AAA after all, flack.
Peter wrote:
Perhaps with the USA guaranteeing European security, there would never be a war in Europe after 1945.
To me it looks like the cause of war is always someone ending up with a despotic regime. Typically far right or far left, but it doesn’t seem to matter. The US has only existed in 200+ years. It is bound to go despotic sooner or later, and certainly has shown more than tendencies to do exactly that.
It is actually a sincere question
In that case I will answer it
It’s been totally obvious.
Of course no political leader is going to say those actual words because it would sound callous. Boris came closest, after he left office, by saying “there were sound economic arguments for that [within Europe] but he could not sign up to it”.
It’s known as Realpolitik. Henry Kissinger would have understood immediately.
maybe some sort of proximity fuse, or on the fly programmable
I would be surprised, given the era, and looking at the photos here
There seems to be a % of tracers (optionally) but other than that it seems to be purely radar guided.
