|
Chalks posted:It'll probably be export versions that can run on diesel so the logistics will be easier. I think all versions can use diesel; its just extra happy with JP8. Doesn't really matter, but I bet the amount is around 12-15, similar to the Challenger offering. Enough to say "gently caress you, we sent tanks, now do the thing" to germany, while not enough to create a logistics nightmare. Small number will also allow for training and logi spin-up.
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:36 |
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Going to be extremely funny if all this moaning and feet-dragging will result in is that Ukraine gets hundreds of M1 and like 10 Leopards from Germany, and Scholz gets permanently locked in a hyperbolic time chamber with everyone yelling “where are your tanks” at him every time he shows outside his office. It seemed like there were never going to be enough Leopards and Challengers to meet the requirements of this war AND the domestic defense requirements of the donors. So the M1 just by being the most numerous western tank available seemed like the inevitable donation. The US built too many for their own needs and now those extras can get a new lease on life in Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 17:15
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:I think all versions can use diesel; its just extra happy with JP8. Apparently it'll be 100+ leopards when Germany gives the go ahead https://abcnews.go.com/International/ukraine-expects-100-leopard-2-tanks-12-countries/story?id=96620510 Things are moving fast
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 17:15
|
|
|
Chalks posted:How many is a significant number I wonder, and how soon? Not that many and not very, would be my guess. There would be a lot of effort in terms of training crews/mechanics and setting up massive logistics chain that will have to be done beforehand, and moving a large number of 70 ton beasts across the world is one hell of a task.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 17:15
|
|
|
Chalks posted:It'll probably be export versions that can run on diesel so the logistics will be easier. All Abrams can run on diesel. You can probably run them on used french fry oil if you want. The US just uses jet fuel for everything because it makes logistics simpler.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 17:17
|
|
|
The Uk are sending 14 Challengers, so is guess that's the absolute floor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:The Uk are sending 14 Challengers, so is guess that's the absolute floor. 15 Abrams if we sending, minimum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 17:44
|
|
|
Blut posted:No idea as to the "why" of why Morocco was buying T-72s in 1999, but they apparently had 158 as of last year. So the 120 figure for Ukraine is probably a reasonable estimate of how many of them might be in vaguely working order. I'd guess the 14 T-72Ms being "delivered" from Czechia were their own tanks being sent back to them after modernisation, just badly phrased on Wiki. Ethiopia's going to want its tanks -- plus it lost quite a few in the war with Tigray. Algeria is also pretty committed to being non-aligned and isolationist, so I doubt it'd sell any. It also had a strong previous affinity with the USSR and mediocre-at-best historical relations with "the West". Angola also has strong historical affinity with the USSR, so I doubt they'd do something that could be seen as turning on Putin, even if their government is not exactly principled. I guess Malaysia and Kenya could probably be convinced to part with them. No idea for Uganda. For Congo I guess it'd depend on whose palms you could grease, not that I'd trust those tanks to have been even remotely maintained since they were purchased, although maybe they'd survive reasonably through 12 years of humidity and neglect. So with Morocco, and then the vaguely realistic wish list of other operators, that's at best like another 300 tanks? Not going to turn the tide of the war, but certainly appreciated. Very piecemeal certainly, but that seems to be the name of the game for heavy materiel aid to Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 17:50
|
|
|
I wonder if Ukrainian tankers are going to be eager to get into a Leopard, Challenger or Abrams. I imagine they will still be using T-72s in large numbers despite the imports. I wonder what sort of selection criteria determines if you get assigned to a leopard or a T-72? Since there's an extra crew requirement I'm gonna guess the less trained soldiers get the loader position while anyone approaching tank ace status probably gets a leopard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 17:53
|
|
|
I believe Ukraine are assembling battalions specifically to operate NATO rather than dispersing it, although I now can't find it. I assume they'd want to put their best in to them, while new troops gain their first experience with older equipment. Edit: there might be a '47th assault brigade', a new volunteer only brigade getting a lot of the new toys. But there's not a lot of mention them outside twitter or one author on Forbes, so apply appropriate salt. Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Jan 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 18:02
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:I wonder if Ukrainian tankers are going to be eager to get into a Leopard, Challenger or Abrams. ... Basing this on nothing but uneducated opinion but gently caress YEAH! who the hell wouldn't want to be driving/gunning in the hottest armored shitbox on the planet? Question feels a lot like asking which fighter pilots would be excited to fly the F-22....
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 18:04
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:I wonder if Ukrainian tankers are going to be eager to get into a Leopard, Challenger or Abrams. I imagine they will still be using T-72s in large numbers despite the imports. I wonder what sort of selection criteria determines if you get assigned to a leopard or a T-72? I assume that same as for Russia, it’s going to be green crews training on the newest tech, since veterans are too expensive to be pulled from the frontlines. RuMoD is on like week 10 of showing regular videos with mobilisation noobs training on stuff like T-90M and Msta-SM2. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Jan 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 18:06
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I assume that same as for Russia, it’s going to be green crews training on the newest tech, since veterans are too expensive to be pulled from the frontlines. RuMoD is on like week 10 of showing regular videos or mobilisation noobs training with stuff like T-90M and Msta-SM2. Are they actually showing people getting 10 weeks of training, or is it new random people every time?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 18:11
|
|
|
TheRat posted:Are they actually showing people getting 10 weeks of training, or is it new random people every time? It’s just random “look at our new soldiers using sick tanks of 2022” type of informercials, with no particularly reliable means to confirm the presented context, or ascertain how much of the more recent equipment they’re preparing behind the scenes. That said, the analytical consensus seems to be rather firmly on the side of Russia not pulling experienced frontline troops back for re-training on more modern vehicles made available.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 18:14
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I assume that same as for Russia, it’s going to be green crews training on the newest tech, since veterans are too expensive to be pulled from the frontlines. RuMoD is on like week 10 of showing regular videos or mobilisation noobs training with stuff like T-90M and Msta-SM2. This - and normally the crippled veterans (ie who're physically incapable of crewing a vehicle) would be assigned to training duty to make up for the inevitable (and in Russia's case quite early) drain on training personnel for front-line duty. But with entirely new vehicles, the trainers are (initially) going to be foreign (and the training taking place on foreign soil), so I imagine the need for veteran to participate in this type of training is much less for Ukraine than for Russia. However, I don't think it will be entirely green crews trained on Leopards and Bradleys. I think it's more likely to be the more promising reservists, people with the right civilian backgrounds and "internal promotions" (eg militia who have been in active garrison, patrol, etc. duty but have shown promise). Ukraine supposedly has a very large pool of recruits (in excess of what they can outfit and train) so they can afford to be a bit picky about who gets trained on the good gear. PederP fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Jan 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 18:26
|
|
|
I don't know how much this actually matters but the T-72 being such a compact tank means there are height restrictions on the crew (Wiki says Soviet restrictions where 5'4" although that seems unlikely to still be the case) compared to larger western tanks. I don't know how tightly those restrictions are followed but perhaps western tanks will allow for a larger pool of crew.
Popete fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Jan 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 18:31
|
|
|
Breaking: Germany will send 15 Leopard 2A6(!) tanks, source is Spiegel.de but it´s paywalled. https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/krieg-in-der-ukraine-deutschland-schickt-leopard-panzer-a-e2dde871-88d0-4cf5-8aae-482d58fd850f KingaSlipek fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Jan 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 18:38
|
|
|
Edit: Looks like we posted simultaneously, cheers.KingaSlipek posted:Breaking: Germany will send 15 Leopard 2A6(!) tanks, source is Spiegel.de but it´s paywalled. Link, please. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Jan 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 18:39
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:https://twitter.com/michaelh992/status/1617904240206426115 The logistics are non-trivial but I think are ultimately solvable. Mark Hertling has alluded to one of the biggest challenges: it's very easy to blow a pack, especially in dusty environments and if you try crossing water without a lot of prep work. The good news is that they're fast to change out...if you have a spare pack laying around. One of the challenges is the need for dedicated recovery vehicles. M1s can recover each other, but not as well as an M88. Soviet-era recovery vehicles are both less plentiful (one per battalion, versus 1 per company in the US) and I assume aren't designed to pull 70 tons out of a ditch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 18:41
|
|
|
How many tractors to pull an M1?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 18:45
|
|
|
Ngl, I did not expect 2A6. That's a pretty fancy upgrade level to give away. The Spiegel is usually not unreliable, so…
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 18:50
|
|
|
The latest developments are extremely promising and it seems there's some behind the scenes insider baseball poo poo going on that had to get resolved with everyone being politically on the same side now. I think strategically the tanks will make a difference, but in practice we should be careful. We already know from Chieftain and other tank experts we saw linked in this thread that tanks are vulnerable if you use them incorrectly. The combined arms training the Ukrainians are getting (And how well their commanders adhere to these doctrines over outdated soviet style thinking) is going to make far more difference than the tanks themselves. We must keep in mind the Saudis and Turks both sent M1s and Leopards respectively into situations where they had no infantry support and they were routinely wrecked by Houthis and ISIS firing Konkurs missiles and other ATGMs. I hope the soldiers take the training seriously and the generals don't do stupid poo poo like leaving tanks isolated and vulnerable. You'd think after decades of tanks rolling in on urban environments as some kind of invincible wonder weapon would teach people not to rely on them as the main weapon for fighting a war but rather a component of a larger combined arms strategy. But no, people continue to ram their heads into a brick wall.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 18:50
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:The logistics are non-trivial but I think are ultimately solvable. Mark Hertling has alluded to one of the biggest challenges: it's very easy to blow a pack, especially in dusty environments and if you try crossing water without a lot of prep work. The good news is that they're fast to change out...if you have a spare pack laying around. I think Germany donated some, and Leopards are pretty big, too?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 18:55
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:I think Germany donated some, and Leopards are pretty big, too? They seem to weigh a same, and the tank pulling vehicles I think were primarily the trucks you use to move them between places by road, rather than armoured engineering vehicles that are going to drive under fire into a swamp to drag a stuck tank out. I think they have been given the latter too, but I’ll be surprised to learn if that number is even as high as dozens plural.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 19:00
|
|
|
I wouldn't get too excited about the Abrams announcement for Ukraine. CNN was just reporting on it and apparently the tanks will not come from existing stocks but rather newly produced tanks. Which would take a very long time to build. I find that kind of odd, because from what I understand the US doesn't build new Abrams and hasn't for a long time. We've been using the same hulls since the 80s and just repeatedly upgraded them over the years. So maybe that's what they mean I don't know but that's the way CNN reported it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 19:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1617949231859503109 Floodgates are truly open now quote:Explosive turnaround in arms exports: Switzerland is said to offer a hand for the delivery of ammunition and tanks to Ukraine
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 19:23
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I wouldn't get too excited about the Abrams announcement for Ukraine. CNN was just reporting on it and apparently the tanks will not come from existing stocks but rather newly produced tanks. Which would take a very long time to build. I find that kind of odd, because from what I understand the US doesn't build new Abrams and hasn't for a long time. We've been using the same hulls since the 80s and just repeatedly upgraded them over the years. So maybe that's what they mean I don't know but that's the way CNN reported it. We've not stopped production on M1 tanks, as I recall, the Pentagon has actually told congress "please stop building us more tanks we don't need any", but congress continues funding it. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 19:24
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I wouldn't get too excited about the Abrams announcement for Ukraine. CNN was just reporting on it and apparently the tanks will not come from existing stocks but rather newly produced tanks. Which would take a very long time to build. I find that kind of odd, because from what I understand the US doesn't build new Abrams and hasn't for a long time. We've been using the same hulls since the 80s and just repeatedly upgraded them over the years. So maybe that's what they mean I don't know but that's the way CNN reported it. The US has been constantly making brand new Abrams since the 80s at the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center, which used to be the Lima Army Tank Plant in Ohio. They make 10-12 a month. The army doesn't want or need them, but the government doesn't want to shut the plant down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 19:27
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I wouldn't get too excited about the Abrams announcement for Ukraine. CNN was just reporting on it and apparently the tanks will not come from existing stocks but rather newly produced tanks. Which would take a very long time to build. I find that kind of odd, because from what I understand the US doesn't build new Abrams and hasn't for a long time. We've been using the same hulls since the 80s and just repeatedly upgraded them over the years. So maybe that's what they mean I don't know but that's the way CNN reported it. I wouldn't look too much into specific nuances like that from CNN. They struggle to not address "Major Generals" as "Major". I suspect it's more than the US isn't planning to send M1s which have been in storage for the past 30 years, but instead would send more recently built M1A2s which have gone straight from the factory to storage because our operational units have enough. Edit: It turns out Congress may have been right!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 19:27
|
|
|
Glad things are moving again, but kinda weird that we went from keeping things logistically simple for Ukraine, to sending them both Abrams and Leopards again despite statements about there being no linkage. Having more tanks just in case ain't a bad thing I guess, time to watch for news when they'll be seen in combat, probably won't be faster than this fall?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 19:31
|
|
|
Johnny Nomad posted:The US has been constantly making brand new Abrams since the 80s at the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center, which used to be the Lima Army Tank Plant in Ohio. They make 10-12 a month. The army doesn't want or need them, but the government doesn't want to shut the plant down. God bless the military industrial complex!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 19:33
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:I think Germany donated some, and Leopards are pretty big, too?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 19:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1617855116606078976
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 19:46
|
|
|
2bn is not 2000000000....
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 20:08
|
|
|
Zedsdeadbaby posted:2bn is not 2000000000.... Source, please.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 20:12
|
|
|
All M1s can functionally run on anything that can burn. That’s the beauty of turbines. You can run a turbine on sawdust. The US military chooses JP8 for logistics compatibility purposes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 20:19
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:All M1s can functionally run on anything that can burn. That’s the beauty of turbines. You can run a turbine on sawdust. The US military chooses JP8 for logistics compatibility purposes. The logistical challenge comes from that turbines can't run on idle, so they drink up a lot of juice. As American equipment it is naturally overweight, too. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 20:27
|
|
|
Morrow posted:The issue is that Germany has twenty years of building up the Russian military to compensate for. TBH older Leo's while potent have possibly worse protection than other options that wouldn't bring their own logi tails (polish and czech upgraded t-72s). 2A6's are super nasty. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jan 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 20:45
|
|
|
The thing that keeps annoyingly getting overlooked about the Abrams and logistics chains isn't just the qualitative difference dealing with parts, amount of fuel, training, ammo, etc. It's that it's loving hard to get giant heavy tanks into Ukraine if you aren't already on the continent. America can't send military equipment to Ukraine by sea since no one can guarantee safe passage and Turkey isn't letting in any new military vessels into the Black Sea. So to get Abrams, America needs to unload them at a port with special facilities, put them onto a train that will somehow get to Ukraine, THEN start dealing with associated logistics troubles above. Leopard IIs are substantially easier to acquire and use in every respect. I'm not aware of this, but the only alternative is using giant heavy lift aircraft. Has anyone, America or otherwise, let those into Ukrainian airspace?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:36 |
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:The thing that keeps annoyingly getting overlooked about the Abrams and logistics chains isn't just the qualitative difference dealing with parts, amount of fuel, training, ammo, etc. It's that it's loving hard to get giant heavy tanks into Ukraine if you aren't already on the continent. America can't send military equipment to Ukraine by sea since no one can guarantee safe passage and Turkey isn't letting in any new military vessels into the Black Sea. So to get Abrams, America needs to unload them at a port with special facilities, put them onto a train that will somehow get to Ukraine, THEN start dealing with associated logistics troubles above. Are there no spare Abrams in Europe? Maybe at some American base? Then can deal with shipping replacement ones from the US later.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 20:52
|
|
