|
Libluini posted:Found some more details. 25 battalions of AMX-10 RC would look a bit cathartic in, you know, your average Ukrainian wheat steppe. Though it's highly unlikely for such a transfer on a timeline quicker than "multiple years".
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
Charlotte Hornets posted:How good are these things for indirect fire? They're just a small, fast-moving tank. Not more or less than any big, armored thing with a gun on it. Looking at the unusually heavy cannon for a tank this size (MECA-L/48, 105 mm), their main strengths are speed, maneuverability and a gun strong enough to beat a lot of Russian tanks, as even modern tanks can get mission killed by this thing if the tank gets a good angle. I'd say they have a comparative indirect fire capability to any other combat tank, there's nothing in their data that says they're unusually good or bad at aiming, so they're essentially just a really cheap Leo-2 with wheels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 20:05
|
|
|
Libluini posted:They're just a small, fast-moving tank. Not more or less than any big, armored thing with a gun on it. Leo 2 has a larger calibre cannon with fancier controls, and an option to have a longer barrel as well, in addition to all the fancy-pants ammunition – I'm not convinced that the comparison is a particularly adequate one. All that said, the cannon on AMX-10 RC is still NATO triple heavy rated at 2.2 km, which means that in that range most hits will penetrate the majority of Soviet tanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 20:12
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Leo 2 has a larger calibre cannon with fancier controls, and an option to have a longer barrel as well, in addition to all the fancy-pants ammunition – I'm not convinced that the comparison is a particularly adequate one. All that said, the cannon on AMX-10 RC is still NATO triple heavy rated at 2.2 km, which means that in that range most hits will penetrate the majority of Soviet tanks. yeah, that's why I called the AMX-10 RC a cheap Leo-2, not an actual Leo-2 (cheap as in knock-off, not "the same, but with less cost") Since it's good enough to shoot up some Soviet tanks and probably a lot cheaper in both actual cost and maintenance than real Leos.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 20:17
|
|
|
Is a tank without treads formally a tank?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 20:20
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:Is a tank without treads formally a tank?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 20:23
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:Is a tank without treads formally a tank? Idk, there’s a Stryker infantry-carrier variant that strips out everything to stick a turret with a 105mm cannon (same as an Abrams) on the drat thing, and all the internals to support it/store ammo. When they were new they couldn’t shoot with the barrel traversed more than ~45° from forward, for fear of tipping the drat things over (the Stryker chassis has always been a bit top-heavy).
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 20:24
|
|
|
Charlotte Hornets posted:How good are these things for indirect fire? It apparently uses a 105mm medium pressure cannon soooo probably not bad but probably not as good as a T-72. The main advantage with it appears to be that its very fast and maneuverable on rough terrain. That and wheeled vehicles usually demand less maintenance than tracks. Doesn't have a stabilized barrel though and the electronics sound like they haven't been updated since the 80's. Armor wise its not much better than a IFV so most any RPG or light cannon can knock it out. Its pretty much a big gun on wheels. They can always put that to use but it sounds like its very obsolete for its OG role as a tank destroyer. https://www.technology.org/2022/09/03/french-amx-10-rc-looks-like-a-tank-but-is-not-a-tank-why-it-could-still-be-useful-for-ukraine/ Getting more of the special French cartridge it shoots sounds like it potentially could be a issue but I have no clue how much France will give them or how much they've got laying around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 20:34
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:Is a tank without treads formally a tank? It's armored, which makes it a Panzer, therefore it's a tank. Pablo Bluth posted:The t in tank clearly stands for tread, making the AMX-10 RC a wank instead.... What does the n and k stand for? Icon Of Sin posted:Idk, there’s a Stryker infantry-carrier variant that strips out everything to stick a turret with a 105mm cannon (same as an Abrams) on the drat thing, and all the internals to support it/store ammo. Kind of funny, this thing was used in several wars, including in Afghanistan, and it seems they've learned from the Stryker's bad example. I'm basing this entirely on the feast our media would have had about French tanks tipping over, and those reports have been completely absent in reporting over those wars. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 20:36
|
|
|
Libluini posted:What does the n and k stand for?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 20:45
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Kind of funny, this thing was used in several wars, including in Afghanistan, and it seems they've learned from the Stryker's bad example. I'm basing this entirely on the feast our media would have had about French tanks tipping over, and those reports have been completely absent in reporting over those wars. The amx-10rc precedes the stryker
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 20:51
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Kind of funny, this thing was used in several wars, including in Afghanistan, and it seems they've learned from the Stryker's bad example. I'm basing this entirely on the feast our media would have had about French tanks tipping over, and those reports have been completely absent in reporting over those wars. The gun on this is much less powerful than the one on M1128. However, IIRC the French also bought really good HE-FRAG shells for them, which makes it a lot more useful for non-tank killing tasks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 20:53
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:The amx-10rc precedes the stryker OK, I didn't expect this. So there's really no excusing the Stryker, huh
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 21:16
|
|
|
Libluini posted:yeah, that's why I called the AMX-10 RC a cheap Leo-2, not an actual Leo-2 (cheap as in knock-off, not "the same, but with less cost") Ah, gotcha - I had erroneously interpreted it as the latter meaning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 21:18
|
|
|
Being Ukraine in this war feels like some air and land variant of the Ace Combat games where you have NATO and Warsaw pact vehicles fighting side by side against predominantly Russian equipment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 21:18
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:
France has had 240 of the things in service until recently which should translate to a decent amount of ammunition laying around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 21:19
|
|
|
Libluini posted:OK, I didn't expect this. So there's really no excusing the Stryker, huh Stryker MGS uses the same hull as the rest of the Stryker family, which are prone to roll over even before putting a heavy cannon on top. In exchange you get simpler logistics when every Stryker vehicle uses mostly interchangeable parts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 21:44
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:France has had 240 of the things in service until recently which should translate to a decent amount of ammunition laying around. Sure but decent for France and decent for Ukraine are probably 2 different things. Ukraine is using quite a bit of cannon ammo daily and their burn rate hasn't been easy for the US and other suppliers to keep up with over time. For all we know France might have a 100k shells for it laying around, plenty for them, but thats only a few months worth supply for Ukraine. It generally seems that the European militaries have let stockpiles dwindle compared to what they were during the Cold War.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 21:55
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:Is a tank without treads formally a tank? It is if you're a doctrine neutral and structure radical! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 22:06
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Sure but decent for France and decent for Ukraine are probably 2 different things. Tank shells haven't really been subject to the same ultra high burn rate as artillery shells in this conflict.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 22:36
|
|
|
I was in a Stryker brigade, the MGS's would be deadlined just by looking at them funny. Keeping the MGS's operational is definitely one of the biggest headaches for the weapons troop commander, the squadron maintenance officer and the maintenance warrant officer. Even if it was easy to maintain, it's still lacks the armor of a real tank, it just happens to have a tank sized gun on it. You can't use the MGS offensively the same way that you can an Abrams. The modern Abrams models fire a 120mm round, not the 105mm of the MGS. Only the original model of the Abrams ever fired 105mm, and that was decades ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 22:43
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Tank shells haven't really been subject to the same ultra high burn rate as artillery shells in this conflict. And it's hard to see a light recon tank spending that much time spamming shells at the enemy anyway. For all we know, they could be relegated to a reserve force in the quieter sectors to free main battle tank reserves to the big fights. They might never play any visible role in the war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 22:47
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Tank shells haven't really been subject to the same ultra high burn rate as artillery shells in this conflict. Oh, I think there's a few dozen thousand T-90/80/72/62 shells that have burned at a really ultra high rate. Mostly in their autoloaders, buuut... (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 22:51
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Found some more details. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Jan 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 22:56
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:That's a decent vehicle. Can't take a hit for poo poo but it's got a medium pressure 105 with modern APFSDS, NVs and thermals. I just wish it had a stabilizer, wait wrong thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 23:01
|
|
|
Nfcknblvbl posted:I just wish it had a stabilizer, wait wrong thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 23:04
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Has Russian been able to confirm the kill of *any* HIMARS? Nothing that's made it to the Oryx list. That in itself isn't really surprising, since their rear-echelon units and Ukraine would gain nothing from publicly sharing pictures of a shredded HIMARS. A recent Perun video said the most credible claims put the total somewhere between 0 and 2. So lol.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 00:28
|
|
|
Icon Of Sin posted:When they were new they couldn’t shoot with the barrel traversed more than ~45° from forward, for fear of tipping the drat things over (the Stryker chassis has always been a bit top-heavy). But enough about your typical goon
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 01:31
|
|
|
U.S. President Joe Biden on Wednesday said that sending Bradley Fighting Vehicles to Ukraine was being considered to help the that country fight Russia's invasion. "Yes," Biden said when asked if the option was on the table. https://archive.is/UlyKG Bit more credible than the prior rumors on this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 02:01
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:And it's hard to see a light recon tank spending that much time spamming shells at the enemy anyway. For all we know, they could be relegated to a reserve force in the quieter sectors to free main battle tank reserves to the big fights. They might never play any visible role in the war. Good point but it's also and likely better used as localized artillery. Same with the Bradley; with this new tactic of human spam wave attacks and mass conscription, light and fast armor with anti-meat gunnery (especially the 25mm chain gun) is going to very much help Ukranian defense and advancement. I remember a recent video defending a human wave attack saying "we need armor" - basically rapidly deployable bullet proof bunker that has bigger weaponry than a rifle or MG. A lot of analysis has pointed to the heavy armor losses by Russia as due to a lack of combined arms support, but clearly precision artillery and a lack of thermal imaging technology has played a part. I don't think the Ukrainian armor will need to account for any of these factors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 04:22
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:It is if you're a doctrine neutral and structure radical! With all the vehicles or many varying types that are getting sent to Ukraine, are they sent with a whole bunch of spare parts for them as well? I would imagine many of them would basically be mostly made up of none of the shelf parts. Their were articles earlier on talking about how they had quite a lot of good mechanics who weren't having any trouble any of the ex-soviet stuff as obviously, but for the really new stuff that you hear Ukraine's been sent like four. If a major part goes, is that just try and tow it somewhere safe until, hopefully you can get a part sent from who ever originally sent the thing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 04:25
|
|
|
Has Russia just given up on Bakhmut then? I can't remember the last update that came from that area.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 04:43
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:Has Russia just given up on Bakhmut then? I can't remember the last update that came from that area. Nah. I bet Russia takes it eventually. They’ve been reportedly encroaching slowly into suburbs. It’s one of those fights where the Russians and the Ukrainians will both simultaneously tell reporters it’s the most miserable lovely fight of the war. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64153581 Example: quote:
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 04:50
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:Toyat's next advertising campaign "Are you doctrine radical and structural radical? Then own a tank today!" 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 04:59
|
|
|
If they sold either the Kia Bongo or the Toyota Hilux in the States, I'd get one. Both of those trucks are unstoppable little freaks of engineering that I have spent too much time driving in my career.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 05:53
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:And it's hard to see a light recon tank spending that much time spamming shells at the enemy anyway. For all we know, they could be relegated to a reserve force in the quieter sectors to free main battle tank reserves to the big fights. They might never play any visible role in the war. Light recon tanks fit well with murderball offensives like the one in Kharkiv.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 07:26
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:Light recon tanks fit well with murderball offensives like the one in Kharkiv. Also, those tanks surely have some good optics that help with a lot of recon-related things, right? Not every tank has to be some giant M1 King Abrams Tiger-IS Mark MMCCIIV
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 08:09
|
|
|
They do have good optics, but I'm not sure how well they fit into Ukraine doctrinally. The French have been using them in Africa (mostly Mali iirc) and Afghanistan so patrolling infantry can bring a really big gun and MG to any potential argument. That said, I doubt any squad is going to say no to having a 105mm cannon on wheels sit back and watch over them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 09:14
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:Toyat's next advertising campaign "Are you doctrine radical and structural radical? Then own a tank today!" They’re sent with some spares, but those tend to wear out quickly (see, the Caesar article from my most recent roundup), and the full repair story for the Western gear seems to be towing it to Europe. Obviously, there’s things like “attach new headlight” that can always be done locally, but I don’t believe they’ve been entrusted means for any complex repairs yet. Huggybear posted:anti-meat gunnery I’d like you to not use unnecessarily graphic language in this thread, going forward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 09:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Nah. I bet Russia takes it eventually. They’ve been reportedly encroaching slowly into suburbs. Prigozin was making noises about Bakhmut being effectively impenetrable a few days ago, which I think is what that person was referring to. (as reported in https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/03/ukraine-wagner-leader-counts-cost-as-russian-offensive-stalls-in-bakhmut since I don't have the video on hand). granted I read that as more of a political statement than as a statement of intention, but there's also been a rapid increase in the amount of noise on the Russian side about what an absolute waste of manpower and materiel bakhmut has become. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 09:58 on Jan 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 09:51
|
|