Too disabled to continue fighting, or would the tank and occupants just shrug it off and continue?

It’d probably keep going. A Challenger 2 was hit by 14 RPGs and an anti-tank guided missile; the optics were damaged so the driver got stuck in a ditch but they were able to sit tight and wait for recovery. Nobody was hurt and the tank was repaired within a few hours
A Russian RPG 29 has penetrated the front of a Challenger 2, causing injuries, but that was 15 years ago and improvements will have been made. Equally the RPG 29 has been superceded by the by the RPG 30 and 32 but none have a range of more than a few hundred metres

There are something like 2000 Leopards in Europe. How many are Ukraine getting, less than 100? Germany is sending 18, its pitiful.

There are something like 2000 Leopards in Europe. How many are Ukraine getting, less than 100? Germany is sending 18, its pitiful.

It does seem like a low number to my eyes, but I’m no expert and I imagine the tank operators needs proper training, and also have the logistics to back them up in terms of ammo, fuel, repairs/servicing, medics, and other supporting millitary personel… it’s not just a case of sending 2000 tanks to the front lines.

It needs to be a well thought out, backed up by logistics/supply chain , operation, otherwise you’d just be sending tanks in to get blown up.

I saw an interesting documentary where a Ukranian tank commander was showing the journalist around his battered old T-64. It had suffered two close artillery strikes, both of which had caused concussion for the crew and damaged the tank.

The era on the front had detonated and was yet to be replaced but the crew had bodged some hand made era for the side panels. There was also a hole in the barrel and they were waiting for nightfall to pull the tank out and get it repaired, it looked like something out of a Mad Max movie.

The most interesting thing was when he pointed out the ballistics / optics computer, which he said “cost a million”. Probably multiple times the value of the tank itself.

I’ve heard that the modern mbt’s that are being supplied could be based in the North, warding off any potential attacks from Belarus and freeing up the old Soviet era tanks currently guarding that border.

Old tanks with big guns but with modern optics can still be effective, especially when probably less than one percent of shells fired from tanks are aimed at other tanks.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the new tanks don’t see much action, but are deployed as a deterrent in the North and as a defensive reserve around Kyiv.

futonrivercrossing
Free Member
There are something like 2000 Leopards in Europe. How many are Ukraine getting, less than 100? Germany is sending 18, its pitiful.

I’m not disagreeing at all, but is there some (justifiable??) concern about a large number of western MBTs falling into Russian hands?

I’m not disagreeing at all, but is there some (justifiable??) concern about a large number of western MBTs falling into Russian hands?

Challenger 2, Leopard, etc are old tech now, although they will have systems that are of interest to Russia. More MBTs will mean that mutual support is better and this might reduce the risk of capture
Russia has bought western military tech, e.g. French sights have been found in Russian tanks captured by Ukraine and while this export market has been closed by recent sanctions the EU is now looking to close sanctions bypassing https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-keeps-doing-business-with-russia-despite-sanctions-2023-03-29/

UK is already building Challenger 3 but MBTs are something that we only have because everyone else has them; the MBTs primary role is to fight other MBTs. Ukraine is only Challenger 2’s second war outing, Iraq 2003 was the first and they weren’t used in Afghanistan (they didn’t have MBTs)
Western MBTs were taken to Afghanistan but primarily used for their sensors (optical, etc) and comms abilities

Iraq 2003 was the first

And that would have been against Russian/Soviet tanks. I think that went quite well from memory.

The C2 was deployed to Kosovo. Although not as kinetic as Iraq it was very quickly noted back then how reliable and maintenance friendly it was. An ex colleague was amazed at how little things went wrong with them. Although relatively new at the time, the trend continued through into Iraq.

As for the C2 that was immobile and received multiple hits in Basra, an ex room mate of mine was in charge of the recovery that day and received the CGC. I “think” it was that incident that resulted in plastic explosive demolitions being reintroduced (costcutting) into the recovery mechanice syllabus as the C2’s track was jammed and it had to be cut with a blow torch.

Once it was recovered it was swarmed over by the mechanics and techs and pretty much the only things needing replaced were the optics, which can be swapped out relatively quickly.

I never worked on C2 but it’s very highly thought of by the crew’s and A mechs.

@cobrakai , your anecdotes are way more interesting than my armchair account 👍
Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo were intended as peace keeping missions, but that doesn’t mean that it was peaceful 🙂

And that would have been against Russian/Soviet tanks. I think that went quite well from memory.

A better indication of the vunribility of Russian equipment can be gained from the conflicts in Israel, specifically the Six Day and Yom Kipur wars. Arab forces used then Soviet tanks, Israel were equipped with amongst other things the British Centurion with its 105mm gun.

Two things stand out that can be directly compared to the war in Ukraine. Small numbers of trained and highly motivated troops with more capable equipment can withstand a far greater force. The Centurions were a game changer, the Challenger 2 is a direct descendent of that tank and has the potential to make a big impact. The Leopards are just along for the ride.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/03/29/vadimir-putin-described-as-dwarf-and-wimp-leaked-call/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

Anyone want to open a sweepstake on how long it’ll be before one/both of these have an unfortunate interface with an open window?

Joking aside though, evidence of how those who are assumed to be supporting Putin (and being sanctioned because of it) really feel about him and his cabal.

I reckon Vlad must be getting even more paranoid than he already is..

Some great info on the Challenger 2 tanks on this thread, thanks! Did a bit of extra reading and Wiki states that the C2 uses a mix of metric nuts & bolts for the turret, but imperial standards for the main chassis! Is that correct?

Western MBTs were taken to Afghanistan but primarily used for their sensors (optical, etc) and comms abilities

The Danes used the Leopard 2 as a very effective fire support element. Also really good at opening doors and compound walls when needed.

The Leopards are just along for the ride.

We’re you wearing your Union Flag pants as you typed that?

inkster Free Member
Old tanks with big guns but with modern optics can still be effective, especially when probably less than one percent of shells fired from tanks are aimed at other tanks.

Nicholas Moran, AKA The Chieftain on YouTube, a tank historian and a US Army cavalry officer, has expressed the opinion that the best upgrade for older tanks is fitting thermal imaging equipment to them. In his opinion a T-62 with a thermal imager would be a more useful tank in Ukraine than a T-72 without one.

Don’t want to knock these sorts, but it’s not a new concept. The ability to find, fix and destroy your enemy without them being able to reciprocate via tech (which can be low or high) and tactics is the essence of warfare.

We’re you wearing your Union Flag pants as you typed that?

Nah always goes commando?

Pauly
Full Member
Some great info on the Challenger 2 tanks on this thread, thanks! Did a bit of extra reading and Wiki states that the C2 uses a mix of metric nuts & bolts for the turret, but imperial standards for the main chassis! Is that correct?

The C2 was basically an upgrade of C1. The main body of the tank had a lot in common with C1, (apparently 90% commonality) hence the imperial sizes as it was an older design, but the turret was a complete redesign with a mix of old kit (radios etc) and new kit (sights etc) so very possibly there would be a mix between imperial and metric. As I said, never worked on it. Our tool boxes had both metric and imperial tools. 13mm/0.5inch spanners/socket were like golddust…….

The Bradley IFV with 25mm chain gun destroyed T55s in Iraq with a tungsten round.

It’s not the chain gun that will have Russian tankers worried, its the TOW missiles most Bradleys carry, they’re terrifyingly effective tank killers.

It’s not the chain gun that will have Russian tankers worried, its the TOW missiles most Bradleys carry, they’re terrifyingly effective tank killers.

Especially if it’s the wire-less version!

@cobrakai when I was a civi REME fitter back in the early 80s our tool boxes were a mixture of AF and Whitworth. You had to borrow from stores on the rare occasion that new fangled metric was needed.

This guy makes a reasonable speculation for what the T54/55s might be used for, which is to be dug in for a defensive position

The T-34 wasn’t an particularly brilliant tank, even in 1942.

True, but by the time the German army had managed to get well into Russia, their supply-lines were already being stretched to the limits, winter was causing all sorts of issues that the Russians were well used to, and they were turning out large numbers of tanks crewed by the teams that built them, including women. They were also being used in urban warfare as well, which the Germans weren’t used to doing, their tanks tended to be bigger and less manoeuvrable in urban warfare.

Fireflys would terrify the Russians, basically a Sherman with a 17pdr gun fitted, they were small and light enough for forest fighting, but could punch a hole through a Tiger. The barrel was counter-shaded at the end to look like it still had the little short barrel of the standard Sherman.

I think the Israelis were using them, maybe they’ve got a few kicking around they could send the Ukrainians.

It’s not the chain gun that will have Russian tankers worried, its the TOW missiles most Bradleys carry, they’re terrifyingly effective tank killers.

The Bradley only carries two TOW missiles, the 25mm chain gun is designed as a tank killer:

The M2/M3’s primary armament is a 25 mm chain gun using either 100 or 300 rounds per minute, accurate to 3,000 m (approximately two miles). It is armed with a TOW missile<sup id=”cite_ref-4″ class=”reference”>[a]</sup> launcher capable of carrying two loaded missiles. The missiles, capable of destroying most tanks to a maximum range of 4,000 metres (13,000 ft), can only be fired while the vehicle is stationary. The Bradley carries a coaxial 7.62 mm medium machine gun to the right of the 25 mm chain gun.

A flock of AC130J Ghostrider gunships would be handy at night:

Armament: Precision Strike Package with 30mm and 105mm cannons and Standoff Precision Guided Munitions (i.e. GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb, GBU-69 Small Glide Munition, AGM-114 Hellfire missile and AGM-176 Griffin missile)

A flock of AC130J Ghostrider gunships would be handy at night:

Chances of that…

Shadow callsigns are hard to come by and reserved for use by a select group of troops.

A flock of AC130J Ghostrider gunships would be handy at night: extremely vulnerable to modern air defences.

FTFY.

The internet fantasies about sending squadrons of A10s or AC130s are just fantasies. They would not survive long against Russian air defences.

Word, but there aren’t many people that can publicly comment on the effectiveness of the countermeasures on most NATO aircraft, it’s quite rightly secret, so conjecture is on both sides.

The Taliban however snagged a Spectre in Afghanistan, hence the night only operations since then.

Like I said, they only get used by a very specific group of units/TF’s and controllers.

The internet fapping over this conflict never loses its rhythm.

Dug in tanks are are just sitting ducks for GPS artillery and drone attacks 🤷‍♂️

Aye, I can’t remember our doctrine for establishing fixed positions, I’m sure I can get some out of date stuff from my uncle (He was CR1 Commander GW1 and Squadron Commander GW2, left as deputy chief of staff Royal Armoured Corps. He might know a little something about armoured doctrine.)

What I do know is it requires heavy engineer support (my old man was an Armoured Engineer) effective use of cam and thermal screens, but as you say drones have flipped this on its head and are a real game changer.

The old man was talking the other night about back in the 90’s they experimented with massive drive in dugouts with overhead cover for tanks, but the work required needed a massive security presence for the engineers or they were established in positions that the enemy would advance to. They stuck to hasty dugouts utilising Trojans or the good old woods and forests.

Mobility is what keeps tanks alive, that and superior optics and range.

In the history of absurd, this is up there as really, properly absurd.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/31/absurdity-to-a-new-level-as-russia-takes-charge-of-un-security-council

@matt_outandabout it’s **** bonkers.

Some light relief

April Fool's Day is TOMORROW. pic.twitter.com/649uCsA06k

— Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (@FCDOGovUK) March 31, 2023

***BREAKING***
France is joining #AUKUS submarine program with Australia, Britain and U.S!

Who is next? https://t.co/Evd5i4HKdZ

— H I Sutton (@CovertShores) April 1, 2023

Very good 👏👏👏

They should really let the Canadians join AUKUS too…

CAKUS?

you have to be so careful what you say!

Ha!, nice cafe, shame if anything happened to it

A proper Von Stauffenbergski moment.

He’s all over twitter at thee moment… and some tables, doors, chairs….

To avoid confusion in other reports, Vladlen Tatarsky aka Maksim Fomin.
The owner of the bombed cafe and Wagner PMC leader Yevgeny Prigozhin “oddly stated on April 2 that he would not “blame the Kyiv regime” for the deaths of Fomin and Russian ultranationalist figure Daria Dugina, suggesting that Ukrainian agents were not in fact responsible.” https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-april-2-2023
This fits the Ukrainian Government statement by Mykhailo Podolyak who “blamed the blast on a Russian “internal political fight”, tweeting: “Spiders are eating each other in a jar.”” BBC^^