|
Wow that's good news about the Bradleys (these are the ones from Pentagon Wars, right?  ) Presumably it took a year to get to this point because they were training up the crews and service personnel, and more will flood in soon. At least I hope so, and it's not an attempt to boil the
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
EmployeeOfTheMonth posted:Why this piecemeal support? Its like ripping a bandage off very slowly. There certainly are escalation concerns, and you could argue this is a way to "boil the frog slowly" so that Putin doesn't get shocked into something drastic. That said I think the biggest issue with what they have committed to is the logistical problems all this equipment faces. You've got such a patchwork of systems now. You already have problems with existing artillery needing a lot of maintenance and barrel replacement (and having to get shipped back and forth from Poland). You're supplying multiple types of artillery shells for multiple different systems (even if they're all 155mm systems, some shells can't be interchanged). You're having to maintain previously committed vehicles like MRAP's, Bushmasters, etc. You're still supporting to a certain degree the old Soviet systems (vehicles & artillery). Now you've just added 25mm autocannon rounds for the Bradley, 20mm rounds for the Marder, non-NATO standard 105mm for the AMX-10, 7.62 for the mounted machine guns, and last but certainly not least, unique maintenance parts and repair processes for all of those vehicles. Then you have to distribute it in a sensible manner, all while keeping it sufficiently dispersed to avoid creating the sorts of concentrations of materiel that get targeted (a lesson the Russians have been learning the hard way). Even keeping all these vehicles fueled is difficult. This many heavier vehicles moving together in some sort of large counteroffensive is going to entail fuel & logistic convoys and protection from potential air attack. That means air defenses and all the unique logistics chains those need (again, everything from Stingers to Gepards to NASAM). There really isn't a modern precedent for a country needing to hold together this many different systems at once (while at war no less!). Employing all of this AT ALL, never mind effectively, is a challenge that frankly melts my mind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 01:09
|
|
|
Just Another Lurker posted:They are concentrating on trying to outflank Soledar at the moment (north of Bakhmut), it helps protect the northern supply route to Bakhmut (there's another supply route from the west as well), take Soledar and they can eventually attack Bakhmut from two sides... capturing it is a completely different story. More reports coming out today of limited breakthroughs in the Soledar area, particularly Russians operating out of Yavolivka. https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1611071770311929857?s=20&t=Sv_VD5kqgCEpYvOqgRdyxQ https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1611133963099148288?s=20&t=Sv_VD5kqgCEpYvOqgRdyxQ The area in question is high ground. An area to keep an eye on over the next few days.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 01:36
|
|
|
Sometimes I wonder what the absurd popularity of humongous pickups would mean in the event of another civil war in the US. The US has literally tens of millions of portential technicals, with virtually infinite spare parts, capable of carrying much heavier payloads than any Hilux or Land Cruiser 70 ever built. Forget the Toyota War, what would the F-350 War look like?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 01:41
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Sometimes I wonder what the absurd popularity of humongous pickups would mean in the event of another civil war in the US. The US has literally tens of millions of portential technicals, with virtually infinite spare parts, capable of carrying much heavier payloads than any Hilux or Land Cruiser 70 ever built. Forget the Toyota War, what would the F-350 War look like? A bunch of broken down poo poo trucks full of fatties.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 02:31
|
|
|
Bashez posted:It's weird to contrast this with the report of 50 bradleys. I understand they don't have to all come at once but these numbers seem so small compared to what is possible. Sending 50 functional, combat ready vehicles is a lot different from sending 50 tracks that have been sitting in the Alabama sun for ten years with no maintenance. Also, Ukraine needs to be able to support them with fuel, ammo, spares, etc. A track with no fuel isn’t much use.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 03:05
|
|
|
This dodgy looking link is a US government link to the Pentagon Press Secretary's press conference today. https://d34w7g4gy10iej.cloudfront.net/video/2301/DOD_109399492/DOD_109399492-1280x720-3000k.mp4 This was also largely about topics other than Ukraine, and I'm not going to write about anything else other than Ukraine in this post. All of this is a paraphrase as I listen, so you get what you pay for. -Security assistance will be more formally/fully announced tomorrow. The announcement will include Bradley Fighting Vehicles. -The Pentagon is not yet prepared to talk about transport or training timeline before they can be shipped or operationalized in Ukraine. They expect to have updates "in the coming days." Training will include both operations and maintenance. -No indications that Russia intends to utilize Belarus to open a new front -Skepticism about Russia's ceasefire reports. Skepticism that Russia is being truthful. -Maintenance is a significant consideration with any weapon transfer, and that remains true of the Bradley -No announcements on any allied Patriot commitments (there are news reports Germany is providing 1x Patriot battery) -US training focus has been for systems the US provides. Partner nations focusing on other training, including collective training. -US will stand up Ukrainian combined arms/maneuver training at the rate of one battalion rotation per month, hosted in Germany. -In response to question as to whether US providing Bradleys influences ally donations of things like Marders or AMXs, kind of a long answer about how the US has been one of the lead nations in working with NATO, allies, and partners to assess the best, integrated way to support Ukraine with capabilities it requires. References Ukraine Contact Group, rather than individual donations without a combined approach. -Nations find they are at a point in this war where they can commit to long-term sustainment of complex systems, such as air defense systems, in a way that wasn't feasible in the early days/weeks of the war. -Patriot training details are still being worked out. Could be overseas, in the US, or combination of both. -When asked if this is a response to concern about a second Russian mobilization (journalist brought that up, not Pentagon), Press Sec pushed back a bit and said this is about the Russian invasion. Says support is based on Ukrainian needs, capabilities, and what can feasibly be provided by US, allies, and partners. -When asked about Abrams, no additional announcements to make. All options remain on table for near, medium, long-term. -"It's not a tank, but it's a tank-killer" while being able to deliver troops into combat. (this in reference to the trap question of describing a Bradley vs a tank).
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 03:07
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:"it's a tank-killer" I didn't realize this about the Bradley
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 03:11
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:I didn't realize this about the Bradley It's got 2 ATGM launchers. e: Took out quite a few Iraqi tanks during Desert Storm. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Jan 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 03:35
|
|
|
And sabot rounds for the 25mm cannon up top.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 03:39
|
|
|
Honestly, Bradleys and Marders are probably more important to Ukraine’s offensive ambitions that Abrams and Leopards, so this is great news. Looking at the Kherson offensive, it seems like Ukraine is very much lacking in protected mobility; i.e., ways to get their troops into the fight quickly and without exposing them to Russian fires. MBTs are great for breakthroughs, but it’s hard to capitalize on them if you don’t have infantry that can follow. On that front, I think the US is going to have to lead the way and offer Abrams; there are tons of them in good shape (just take a gander at the Sierra Army Depot to see what I mean, US stocks aren’t like Russian ones seem to be; most of these aren’t far from operable condition). From a logistics point of view it’s not a great fit for Ukraine, but I just don’t see anyone else being able to provide the amount of armor they’ll need. The Leopard 2 is a better tank for the fight, but I don’t see anyone scrounging up the numbers. Re: AMX-10RC, it’ll be interesting to see how Ukraine uses them. While the French Foreign Legion has been using them in more recent times to support asymmetric operations, I believe that it was actually designed for a more conventional armored recon role. That is, to conduct probing attacks on suspected weakpoints in the enemy lines with enough of a threat to provoke a real response. The vehicles need to be fast enough to scoot away when overmatched, yet formidable enough to pose a real threat and potentially exploit opportunities. Both Ukrainian and Russian forces seem proficient in these sorts of tactics, although I don’t think either have large numbers of vehicles dedicated to this role.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 04:11
|
|
|
Icon Of Sin posted:And sabot rounds for the 25mm cannon up top. The side armor of a T-72 has a small, but serious, chink in it. The bottom 6 inches or so is thin enough a good 25/30mm sabot round can penetrate it. Behind that armor is a fuel tank. Sitting on top of that fuel tank is the ammunition. We saw video of that area being hit last summer. It was the gunners-eye view video from an IFV with 30mm. It rolls left out from behind a building and the gunner hoses down a T-72 from the side, then yells at the driver and they go back under cover. As they roll right you see a flare from the T-72. Then they roll right and there's a BTR facing them with the dismounts behind it. The gunner gives it a faceful of 30mm, then shoots low to send ricochets and frags at the infantry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 04:22
|
|
|
Bradley platoons roll with 4 vehicles, too. I found a GAO report written in 1992 as an after-action report on Gulf War I talking about Bradleys and Abrams during that conflict, on page 17 they talk about some of the Bradley vs tank engagements. quote:The Bradley’s weapon systems proved to be lethal and effective against a variety of enemy targets. Commanders, crews, and officials from the Whole report: https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-92-94.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 05:05
|
|
|
Also something interesting popped up that was lost with all the AFV news.quote:The package will for the first time include radar-guided Sea Sparrow anti-air missiles, which can be launched from the sea or on land to intercept aircraft or cruise missiles. In a bit of battlefield innovation, the Ukrainian military has managed to tweak its existing Soviet-era BUK launchers to fire the Sea Sparrow, two people familiar with the matter said. Up to this point, Taiwan has been the only country to operate the ground-launched version of the missiles, while the U.S. and multiple allied navies use the ship-mounted version.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 12:44
|
|
|
Yeah, the latest Enhanced Sea Sparrows are basically broadly comparable to a BUK, and are specifically designed to counter Soviet Cruise and Anti-Ship Missiles. Due to its Air Force, the US has never really had a focus on land-based SAMs, but their naval ones are very good - only problem is they are designed to fire from ships... But if they have found a way to target and fire ESSMs from BUK launchers, it could go a very long way (alongside Patrio, NASAMS, and Iris-T) to restocking Ukraine's depleted air defense network and relieving the pressure on the S-300s and BUKs - which was one of the big concerns flagged in a recent Perun video.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 12:56
|
|
|
Tetraptous posted:Re: AMX-10RC, it’ll be interesting to see how Ukraine uses them. While the French Foreign Legion has been using them in more recent times to support asymmetric operations, I believe that it was actually designed for a more conventional armored recon role. That is, to conduct probing attacks on suspected weakpoints in the enemy lines with enough of a threat to provoke a real response. The vehicles need to be fast enough to scoot away when overmatched, yet formidable enough to pose a real threat and potentially exploit opportunities. Both Ukrainian and Russian forces seem proficient in these sorts of tactics, although I don’t think either have large numbers of vehicles dedicated to this role. Contemporary battlefield is not really conductive for this kind of tactic, though. At least if you ask the scout tank's crew's opinion about going on a suicide mission. All you need is a greeting card from a RPG-7 and that light Frenchie is toast. AMX has no advantage in this role over other light afvs. It will also have mobility issues compared to BMP's and BTR's so depending on conditions it may not be able to follow the troop transports. It's not a Wunderwaffe or what Ukraine particularly needs right now, but just getting any form of armoured fighting vehicles is welcome and a necessity in this kind of material grinding warfare.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 15:42
|
|
|
Der Kyhe posted:Yeah, that is exactly the point; there isn't enough to give unless its from the endless US supply. Leopard 2 is out because there really isn't that many to give, Bradley and maybe later Abrams, hundreds if not thousands to give away to do the job they were designed for. To tell USSR--- Russians to get fisted. To correct this a bit, the Bundeswehr has hundreds of unused Leo2s in storage. They could easily refurbish 100-200 and give them, it just needs political will and a lot of hard work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 15:50
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Contemporary battlefield is not really conductive for this kind of tactic, though. At least if you ask the scout tank's crew's opinion about going on a suicide mission. All you need is a greeting card from a RPG-7 and that light Frenchie is toast. AMX has no advantage in this role over other light afvs. It will also have mobility issues compared to BMP's and BTR's so depending on conditions it may not be able to follow the troop transports. It's not a Wunderwaffe or what Ukraine particularly needs right now, but just getting any form of armoured fighting vehicles is welcome and a necessity in this kind of material grinding warfare. The main thing to me, appears to be that the AMX-10 RC has a 105 mm cannon which is probably more useful to take out Russian vehicles (in particular BMPs?) than the Bradleys and Marders (though maybe the latter compensate with missiles, I'm no expert). I'd guess that the AMX might be a better fit for supporting infantry in combat against Russian vehicles than the Bradley and Marder? We've seen various videos early in the war with RuAF and UAF BMPs plinking away at each other. Conversely, I thought wheeled vehicles are more useful in desert environments (with harder ground surfaces) than... Ukraine. I wonder to which extent the AMX-10 RC can deal with Ukrainian mud (or even dirt roads in adverse weather).
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 16:03
|
|
|
AFAIK it's actual use in french service, it has spent far more time supporting infantry than actually being a recon tank.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 16:08
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:AFAIK it's actual use in french service, it has spent far more time supporting infantry than actually being a recon tank. Sounds about right. Any vehicle showing up with even a decent gun on top is a godsend for whatever poor soldiers are getting shot up, all the better if it was attached to your platoon to start with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 16:11
|
|
|
Icon Of Sin posted:Sounds about right. Any vehicle showing up with even a decent gun on top is a godsend for whatever poor soldiers are getting shot up, all the better if it was attached to your platoon to start with. Not to mention the host of sensors it carries. That's really appreciated by the infantry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 16:18
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:AFAIK it's actual use in french service, it has spent far more time supporting infantry than actually being a recon tank. It strikes me as the kind of vehicle you use for maintaining overseas colonies where the natives fighting you don’t necessarily have the kind of equipment an industrialized nation can send at you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 16:18
|
|
|
The WW2 Wehrmacht had that 8x8 recon car with iirc a 5cm PAK in a turret, which was maybe broadly comparable to that 105mm today - a step below what you'd use as the MBT main gun but still a lot of bang. So there's at least some precedent for ppl thinking that there's a use for something like that in peer combined arms warfare?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
OperaMouse posted:Not to mention the host of sensors it carries. That's really appreciated by the infantry. True. One of the upgrades the Marder has gotten through the decades in service was an infrared camera. Plus MILAN anti-tank missiles was the first upgrade they got even before that. Marders can also shoot infrared-blocking smoke grenades. Fighting Marders in the dark is not something I'd like to do, to be honest. Fighting something that can see you even when you hide behind walls while it at the same time can block your side from doing the same sounds terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 17:11
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Wow that's good news about the Bradleys (these are the ones from Pentagon Wars, right? I know it's a joke but these are the ones after 30 years of upgrades and tweaks. For example all the modern ones have active detection and protection systems. Though it's always funny the firing port weapon saw more service as an entry team weapon than a casemate gun. Certainly several silly decisions tend to creep into designs during relative peace.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 17:12
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:The WW2 Wehrmacht had that 8x8 recon car with iirc a 5cm PAK in a turret, which was maybe broadly comparable to that 105mm today - a step below what you'd use as the MBT main gun but still a lot of bang. So there's at least some precedent for ppl thinking that there's a use for something like that in peer combined arms warfare? A Sd.Kfz. 234 ?  https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzersp%C3%A4hwagen_Sd.Kfz._234
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 17:38
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Contemporary battlefield is not really conductive for this kind of tactic, though. At least if you ask the scout tank's crew's opinion about going on a suicide mission. All you need is a greeting card from a RPG-7 and that light Frenchie is toast. AMX has no advantage in this role over other light afvs. It will also have mobility issues compared to BMP's and BTR's so depending on conditions it may not be able to follow the troop transports. It's not a Wunderwaffe or what Ukraine particularly needs right now, but just getting any form of armoured fighting vehicles is welcome and a necessity in this kind of material grinding warfare. I get the impression it will perform well in a defensive role, ambushing Russian tanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 17:44
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:The WW2 Wehrmacht had that 8x8 recon car with iirc a 5cm PAK in a turret, which was maybe broadly comparable to that 105mm today - a step below what you'd use as the MBT main gun but still a lot of bang. So there's at least some precedent for ppl thinking that there's a use for something like that in peer combined arms warfare? Yeah- the Puma. The design of that vehicle was based on the notion that recon units were getting into heavier combat and needed better armament- autocannons of ww2 vintage tended to be horribly inaccurate in anything other than single fire and a 20mm firing singly just wasn't doing much. They were also thinly armored. The broader solution almost every combatant of ww2 came up with to their recon units getting wrecked in combat was to make them heavier, closer to real mech-armor combined arms groups since they were getting into that kind of combat anyway. So Germany's putting Panthers in recon companies, the US was replacing M8 Scott (75mm) gun carriages with Priests with 105s, and they tried when possible to get stuarts replaced with shermans. At the beginning of the war, recon units are riding motorcycles- by the end of it they're a mish-mash of armored cars, tank destroyers, medium tanks, light tanks, and half-tracks, some of which are heavily armed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 17:51
|
|
|
Once you've got the mobility and protection you need for a recon vehicle then you generally want the biggest gun you can stick on it that will keep within your weight limits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 17:58
|
|
|
The main value of the AMX is that it's a gateway vehicle: next comes the Bradley and the Marder, and then we're getting into pedantic debates about the meaning of tank and discussing sending Leo's. By the time of the Fall campaign Ukraine will have several brigades of western armor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 18:01
|
|
|
He was talking about the 234/2 specifically, but yes, all of the 234s are variations on the same theme with different main gun arrangements.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 18:10
|
|
|
Some concrete numbers for the first Marder-delivery -40 Marders + one Patriot-battery -Delivery will be complete by end of March -the 8 weeks between now and delivery is needed to train Ukrainian soldiers on the Marders
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 19:01
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Some concrete numbers for the first Marder-delivery
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 19:07
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:... Isn't 8 weeks more like end of February? Patriot is probably a bit more complicated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
It says delivery will be complete by end of march. Not that delivery will begin there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:... Isn't 8 weeks more like end of February? 8 weeks training time and the delivery of the tanks is supposed to be complete by end of March. I'm guessing they aren't planning to wait until the very last day
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 19:12
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:... Isn't 8 weeks more like end of February? But I really thought the training would've been done by now and that this was just an announcement of the transfer. So it actually took one year just to make the decision?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 19:12
|
|
|
Pre and post war French doctrine loves these heavily armed and less armored vehicles, in particular viewing them as mission not the mount replacements for the old cavalry
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 19:26
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:You need to allow at least 4 weeks to get all the papers stamped correctly. What year? The decision is less then a week old
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 19:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
Libluini posted:What year? The decision is less then a week old
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 19:36
|
|