Are the tanks a game changer or too precious to be anywhere near the front?

Posted 1 week ago

Are the tanks a game changer

Leopards, yes. Abrahms, no. But it means a wide response, not a “German led” one.

Posted 1 week ago

Use the Abrams as rear guard around Kiev. Then they are in country and have served the purpose of releasing Leopard tanks from German embargo. So Germany et al who said we will send tanks if you send Abrams cant now back out.
Thay are big, the M1A1 was around 60t iirc so bridge weight limits become critical. Plus all the transport required. I think the Leopard is multi fuel, like the challenger but the Abrams is jet fuel only ad its a turbine. Fast though, be in crimea in no time.

Posted 1 week ago

100-200 modern tanks of any flavour , plus 100 Bradleys, 50 Marder, 50 AMX10, 50 CV90, 100 new western SPG and hundreds of new APCs. Yes, that lot is pretty game changing.

Posted 1 week ago

The leopards weigh about as much (all the main western tanks are heavyweights) plus the Abrams engine is multi fuel.

Posted 1 week ago

According to it’s 31 Abrams (“a battalion”) and it may take “months potentially years” for them to arrive in Ukraine. But if it shows solidarity and helps open the arms floodgates, that’s good.

Posted 1 week ago

Very good news!

Posted 1 week ago

Looking a year or two ahead when the focus has moved to securing Ukraine’s borders, having Abrams experience is a good idea. The US can probably deliver them more easily than Germany can Leopards in large numbers.

Posted 1 week ago

Yes, long term they’ll be essential. This year though, it’s the Leopards that are needed, ASAP.

Anyway, good announcement from Germany and USA, a relief that it wasn’t just rumours.

Posted 1 week ago

Abrams engine is multi fuel

Absolutely. I keep seeing that it runs on jet fuel only, it doesn’t.
The original design was a diesel-fuelled turbine engine and it’ll also run on petrol or aircraft jet fuel. The US tend to use jet fuel because it’s logistically simpler
Newer upgrades include an auxiliary power unit to keep systems running without the thirsty main turbine burning fuel
Spec-wise the three MBTs are similar and Challenger 2, Abrams and L2 all use a 120mm gun that uses common ammunition. Challenger 2 uses a rifled gun that will also fire HESH rounds, which has been a UK preference. The smoothbore guns on Abrams and L2 will also fire HEAT rounds but not HESH
Trent Telenko (Twitter) says that an Abrams power pack can be changed in an hour, that’s a complete unit with transmission, cooling and exhaust systems. The broken pack can be sent back for specific repair

Posted 1 week ago

Are the tanks a game changer or too precious to be anywhere near the front?

They’re part of a system, there’s an article here…
https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-supply-of-advanced-tanks-will-give-kyiv-an-edge-over-russia-and-move-it-closer-to-nato-197592
The article is pre-Leopard announcement and the information yesterday was that the German contribution will be the more capable A6 variant
Bottom line is that MBTs are meant to take ground as part of that system. Current numbers are maybe half of what Ukraine wanted, but that could be a bargaining position

Posted 1 week ago

Fast though, be in crimea in no time

Abrams and C2 about 25mph across country, L2 is a bit quicker 🙂
Abrams and L2 45mph on road, C2 a bit slower
C2 has the greatest range on a tank-full, L2 the worst

Posted 1 week ago

Abrams and C2 about 25mph across country, L2 is a bit quicker 🙂
Abrams and L2 45mph on road, C2 a bit slower
C2 has the greatest range on a tank-full, L2 the worst

Is this from wikipedia or Top Trumps 🙂

Posted 1 week ago

Is this from wikipedia or Top Trumps

It’s the best that I can find, but no guarantees… https://xkcd.com/386/ 🙂

Posted 1 week ago

Spec-wise the three MBTs are similar and Challenger 2, Abrams and L2 all use a 120mm gun that uses common ammunition. Challenger 2 uses a rifled gun that will also fire HESH rounds, which has been a UK preference. The smoothbore guns on Abrams and L2 will also fire HEAT rounds but not HESH

Not entirely true, yes they all use 120mm ammunition, but the Challenger uses a two part ammo, the projectile and charge are separate, three part if you consider the charge is ignited by what is called a vent tube.

The M1 and L2 use conventional one piece ammunition, hence the large buttress on the rear of the turret. There will be logistical issues to supplying two differing types of ammunition.

Posted 1 week ago

There will be logistical issues to supplying two differing types of ammunition.

Three, considering their existing tanks

Posted 1 week ago

Is this from wikipedia or Top Trumps

From world of tanks of course.

Which if you havent heard of it is an online tank battle again with some very dedicated fans including members of various tank units.
There have been several occasions where people have complained about the stats of a particular tank and provided restricted documents to back up their claims.

Posted 1 week ago

Challenger 2 has the ability to make cups of tea.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_vessel

Clearly it is superior.

Posted 1 week ago

Abrahams have an Ooni 3 Pizza Oven welded on the back

Posted 1 week ago

Not entirely true, yes they all use 120mm ammunition…snip

I’ve flicked back through the Top Trumps and you’re right, which isn’t what they say… http://military-today.com/tanks/challenger_2.htm 🙂

Thanks for pointing that out. Challenger 3 will be NATO-standard

Posted 1 week ago

Challenger 3 will be NATO-standard

Milk and two sugars?

Posted 1 week ago

Spain is sending up to 53 Leopards 👏

Posted 1 week ago

be in Crimea in no time

and be welcomed with flowers. Or maybe not.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-after-russia-annexed-crimea-locals-prefer-moscow-to-kiev/amp/

Posted 1 week ago

@DrJ

This article is more than 7 years old.
The U.S and European Union may want to save Crimeans from themselves. But the Crimeans are happy right where they are.

Posted 1 week ago

and be welcomed with flowers. Or maybe not.

That’s one of the most extreme cases of selection bias imaginable. Any openly pro-Ukrainian Crimeans would have either fled or have been imprisoned or deported. Russians moved into Crimea after the invasion so the current occupants of Crimea are overwhelmingly pro-Russian. If Ukraine retakes Crimea and conducts a survey of Crimean residents, you’ll find the exact opposite has happened – the pro-Russian people will have fled to Russia and the pro-Ukrainian Crimeans will have returned.

Posted 1 week ago

How long does it take to train crews up to be effective in these vehicles?

What level of adaption will they need?

Posted 1 week ago

That’s one of the most extreme cases of selection bias imaginable. Any openly pro-Ukrainian Crimeans would have either fled or have been imprisoned or deported. Russians moved into Crimea after the invasion so the current occupants of Crimea are overwhelmingly pro-Russian.

That may or may not be the case – I am guessing that you have no data to back up your claim. But I think it’s useful to bear in mind that the story that’s being fed us day after day may not be the whole truth.

Posted 1 week ago

How long does it take to train crews up to be effective in these vehicles?

What level of adaption will they need?

According to a bloke on The Newsagents Podcast just now it’s pretty straightforward and any teenager can learn to fire the gun in a few minutes.

Posted 1 week ago

Setting up the logistics chain might take a while – if that isnt done properly you end up with the Russian convoys north of Kyiv with no fuel!

Posted 1 week ago

I jumped into a Challenger and it took Less than an hour to be able to get it moving in the intended direction at a steady smooth speed. Admittedly this was a flat feild, with no one trying to insert an rpg into turret.
It will be the more techy stuff that takes time to learn. Crossing ditches or raised barracdes. Going fast backwards, getting out of mud when ypur bottomed out and the tracks are useless stuff.

Then there is the gunnery, targeting, smoke, machine guns, fuelling, re loading, in feild maintenance to learn.

Posted 1 week ago

It will be the more techy stuff that takes time to learn. Crossing ditches or raised barracdes. Going fast backwards, getting out of mud when ypur bottomed out and the tracks are useless stuff.

Does that stuff differ significantly from tank to tank, or will Ukrainians experienced with their current kit already know pretty much what to do?

Posted 1 week ago

That’s one of the most extreme cases of selection bias imaginable.

Not just that though. If you’re in an area that’s being occupied militarily, and someone asks you if you like being occupied, what are you going to say?

Posted 1 week ago

I jumped into a Challenger and it took Less than an hour to be able to get it moving in the intended direction at a steady smooth speed. Admittedly this was a flat feild, with no one trying to insert an rpg into turret.
It will be the more techy stuff that takes time to learn.

Yep.

The second army of the world pic.twitter.com/oQmIdDLOY7

— bigSAC™ (@bigSAC10) January 26, 2023

Posted 1 week ago

Im just going to recommend nobody go and look at any other of bigSAC10’s Tweets!

There’s stuff in there youll not be able to forget.

Posted 1 week ago

The basic principles of tank warfare will already be known. What they have to learn are the differant fire control systems and the differant gun loading systems.

Whilst a teenager can learn to press the firing switch in two minutes, target aquisition and basic gunnery principles particular to the tank in question will take a bit longer…plus the drills to follow should the gun not fire.

The Challenger has a fabulous ride, compared to older tanks, it will feel like an armchair compared to a T72.

Posted 1 week ago

It’ll certainly help Ukraine having armoured squadrons, it’s just another string to their defence, they’ll have air defence to support their deployment as well, but it’s only going to escalate further, talk from Ukraine is they’ll now push the west to supply long range missiles and aircraft, which i can see being a real issue, on one side it’s what they need to defend their country, but the flip side is that it could drag the west into a bigger war, we have had arguments, no matter how loose of the supply of defensive weaponry, but you start giving them long range missiles and combat aircraft and it’s a whole other thing.

Posted 1 week ago

Is it? Russia are using them. It’s hardly giving then ICBMs. In fact when Ukraine gave up it’s nukes we promised to protect them…..

Posted 1 week ago

Theyve already received fighter aircraft, quite early on as well.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220420-ukraine-receives-fighter-planes-parts-to-bolster-air-force-pentagon

Do you mean aircraft that are not Soviet designs?

Posted 1 week ago

100-200 modern tanks of any flavour , plus 100 Bradleys, 50 Marder, 50 AMX10, 50 CV90, 100 new western SPG and hundreds of new APCs. Yes, that lot is pretty game changing.

Up against an estimated 15,000 Russian tanks. If it comes down to numbers, then Russia is not going to run out any time soon.

Posted 1 week ago

Up against an estimated 15,000 Russian tanks.

Russia does not have 15,000 operational tanks. They may have that many rusty old hulks sitting in storage depots, but they lost most of their modern tanks in the first few months. Now they seem to have stopped using tanks at all in their offenses – they’re just sending in waves of conscripts without any armoured support. We aren’t going to see massed tank battles, just tanks being used to support infantry.

Posted 1 week ago