|
Pook Good Mook posted:put them onto a train that will somehow get to Ukraine I bet they use some kind of track. That's how I'd do it.
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:01 |
|
|
It also helps that since Russia isn't insane enough to bomb Poland, they can set up a spare part shop less than 100 km from Lviv. Which itself is a major city that has three highways connecting it to Poland, and a major railway hub.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 20:56
|
|
|
Der Kyhe posted:It also helps that since Russia isn't insane enough to bomb Poland, they can set up a spare part shop less than 100 km from Lviv. Which itself is a major city that has three highways connecting it to Poland, and a major railway hub. That's great for stuff that's already in Europe, and very not great for stuff that's in the US (which is all of them if CNN are correct in saying they will be newly or somewhat newly made)
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 20:59
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:. 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. “Port with special facilities” You’re making a RO-RO Port sound like it is a complicated thing. They just drive them down the ramp off the ship. They aren’t going to put them on flats like strykers. Too heavy for that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 21:00
|
|
|
TheRat posted:That's great for stuff that's already in Europe, and very not great for stuff that's in the US (which is all of them if CNN are correct in saying they will be newly or somewhat newly made) The US armed forces logistics fleet is comically huge, they surely can figure out how to deploy an engineering yard to Eastern Poland with a "soonish" schedule.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 21:06
|
|
|
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64391272 Well, there it goes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 21:06
|
|
|
Kind of amazed when poo poo actually works
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 21:08
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:lmao lord almighty The truth is probably that Leo-2s 2A6 and upwards are the only ones we have that haven't rusted down to a useless lump of metal thanks to neglect, 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
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 can't remember where I read this so take it as hearsay and conjecture but apparently domestic Abrams have classified special sauce depleted uranium armor components, and all export models like Saudi or Australian Abrams do not. So maybe rebuilding existing tanks to make them suitable for exports technically counts as new production?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 21:16
|
|
|
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. It's worth noting that if "Getting the actual tank from the US to some random hostile hotspot in Europe" is an insurmountable logistical challenge, that kinda puts the whole concept of NATO at risk. A hypothetical Clancywar scenario won't last long if the US can't get more than a dozen or so tanks across the Atlantic to the front at a time. I have to assume that the US does indeed have plans and capability to lift and supply entire armies if necessary, it's just that they're used to handling logistics and maintenance at the end point as well instead of handing it off to someone else who isn't as prepared.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 21:17
|
|
|
Sekenr posted:Kind of amazed when poo poo actually works This is the stuff that US tax-payers literally overpay for. That hammer might cost 200 USD per item, but if they order one to Diego Garcia with 48h delivery it will be there, or someone will lose their job and there will be an investigation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 21:20
|
|
|
Tomn posted:It's worth noting that if "Getting the actual tank from the US to some random hostile hotspot in Europe" is an insurmountable logistical challenge, that kinda puts the whole concept of NATO at risk. A hypothetical Clancywar scenario won't last long if the US can't get more than a dozen or so tanks across the Atlantic to the front at a time. I have to assume that the US does indeed have plans and capability to lift and supply entire armies if necessary, it's just that they're used to handling logistics and maintenance at the end point as well instead of handing it off to someone else who isn't as prepared. I think that scenario means for the stuff in Europe to hold on until US carriers float to the middle of the Ocean and just bomb the poo poo out of everything. It’s also not a scenario to further develop in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 21:20
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Source, please. If the parent poster is from a long scale country then their 2bn is 2,000,000,000,000 instead of 2,000,000,000.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 21:22
|
|
|
Here’s how that works: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_sealift_ships It’s quite straightforward really. Loaded ships just sit around and wait all over the world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 21:23
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I think that scenario means for the stuff in Europe to hold on until US carriers float to the middle of the Ocean and just bomb the poo poo out of everything. It’s also not a scenario to further develop in this thread. Eh, the point I was making was that if the US had any plans at all to reinforce units in Europe in the event of a war I kinda assume they'd had logistical plans to sealift tanks, and lots of them so I don't think "Getting big tanks to Europe is hard" is that much of a concern.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 21:26
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:“Port with special facilities” Incidentally, the US and Denmark has just recently made deals for increased usage of Danish harbors (Esbjerg, Aarhus) for the purpose of logistics. Esbjerg in particular is being expanded. I'm pretty sure of all the challenges associated with getting MBTs to Ukraine - physically moving them there is one of the least problematic. The US has a fair bit of experience in moving stuff to Europe. Organizing the training, operational logistics and figuring out the split between in/out of country facilities and depots is probably massively more challenging. But I expect Russia will be making an attempt to do something spectacular in western Ukraine as a response to this. I will be surprised if the next couple of concentrated strikes by Russian drones/missiles isn't focused at logistics in western Ukraine. Which could lead to increased friction with Belarus if the strikes are mostly launched from that direction. Maybe that's part of the reason for the recent Ukrainian olive branch towards Belarus?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 21:28
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Eh, the point I was making was that if the US had any plans at all to reinforce units in Europe in the event of a war I kinda assume they'd had logistical plans to sealift tanks, and lots of them so I don't think "Getting big tanks to Europe is hard" is that much of a concern. It is when America isn't at war and can't secure their own supply routes. America can't force the Dardanelles and has to rely upon European transportation to get things to Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 21:33
|
|
|
PederP posted:Maybe that's part of the reason for the recent Ukrainian olive branch towards Belarus? Its also a diplomatically very clever double-edged sword; if they take that non-aggression deal, it also would mean that they have to enforce it against Russians in Belarus, but otherwise they would be left alone when this dies down. Maybe even get some sanctions lifted after the cease fire. If they don't, they clear all of the ambiguity with how much they are working with the Russians. Well, at least more than what they already are. Now that Ukraine is getting MBTs from NATO and things seem to start rolling again towards liberating the occupied parts of Ukraine, Luka needs to re-evaluate his position to drive out from this poo poo storm. Der Kyhe fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Jan 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 21:35
|
|
|
Is this line of thought that Russia is gonna sink U.S. military ships in the Atlantic? Maybe through some magic plausible deniability because subs? That’s spectacularly clancychat. I’m only clarifying because folks responding to this seem to think the concern is that there are physical limitations with port facilities in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 21:38
|
|
|
Wibla posted:More than 2,500 equipment items from the U.S. Army’s 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Calvary Division stationed at Fort Hood, Texas, will off-load at port facilities located in Vlissingen, The Netherlands; Aarhus, Denmark, and Riga, Latvia throughout the January 13-18, 2023 timeframe... Speaking of, the Bradley photos we saw recently apparently were for the Baltics, and of a bit newer model than what Ukraine is getting. dennyk posted:If the parent poster is from a long scale country then their 2bn is 2,000,000,000,000 instead of 2,000,000,000.  How have I never learned of this before?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 21:42
|
|
|
dennyk posted:If the parent poster is from a long scale country then their 2bn is 2,000,000,000,000 instead of 2,000,000,000. Anyone who is from the long scale country also understands that if we talk about billions in English we are taking about milliards, unless they use their head mostly as a hatstand. EDIT: cinci zoo sniper posted:
THIS, I did not expect, sorry! 
Der Kyhe fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Jan 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 21:42
|
|
|
The US had a program precisely to deal with this called POCMUS (Prepositioning Of Materiel Configured in Unit Sets). Six full divisions worth of materiel ready to roll in Europe. Just add dudes (through airlift). that went away with the Cold War ending but there was talk about bringing it back at brigade scale a few years back. Don’t know if anything came of it. But yeah moving poo poo around the globe real fast is very much US Military core competence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 21:45
|
|
|
Wow, cool. I think my last post in this thread a while ago was bitching about this very thing  Once this is over, I really want to see what the behind-the-scenes process was. Just seems absolutely bizarre situation with the inability to have a coherent plan or at least communication about it, with some claiming to want to send stuff ASAP, pointing fingers, etc. Until one moment and bam, and there it is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 21:46
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Wow, cool. I think my last post in this thread a while ago was bitching about this very thing I think it's just Scholz being Scholz.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 21:50
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The US had a program precisely to deal with this called POCMUS (Prepositioning Of Materiel Configured in Unit Sets). Six full divisions worth of materiel ready to roll in Europe. Just add dudes (through airlift). that went away with the Cold War ending but there was talk about bringing it back at brigade scale a few years back. Don’t know if anything came of it. Yeah, when my mom was stationed in W. Germany in the early 80's (Army admin?) they were basically told they were the road bump to slow down the Soviets while the rest of the people via REFORGER came in and busted all the equipment in the depots out. Or until the nukes started to fly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 21:54
|
|
|
Tbh., right now it looks like Scholz is playing 5D Mensch Ärgere Dich Nicht. Those leaks and announcements are too close to not be coordinated and there's a large package of Abrams in there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 21:57
|
|
|
Logistics Chat: The unit rotation in Iraq in late 2003 / early 2004 was the single largest military logistic operation in history. It was larger than D-Day. The US basically swapped 3rd Infantry Division, 82nd Airborne, 101st Airborne, 3rd Armored Cavalry, 173rd Airborne Regiment plus a dozen or so brigade-sized enablers out of country, and replaced them with similar-sized forces. With one port. And no rail lines. After that they got smarter and started leaving the equipment in-country. The US is very, very good at moving obscene amounts of heavy equipment around. The biggest issue is probably rails, though: Germany, for example, only has enough rolling stock for about a US-sized brigade at a time. Still, it should be enough to get a couple hundred MBTs from a port in the Netherlands to the Polish-Ukrainian border in a few days.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 22:01
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:It is when America isn't at war and can't secure their own supply routes. America can't force the Dardanelles and has to rely upon European transportation to get things to Ukraine. I mean, so? Yeah, not being able to just unload at a Ukrainian port is an annoyance but it's not the end of the world. Again, in the event of a hot war it's not like the US would have been planning to ship things directly at the front lines anyways, shipping somewhere safer and then railing the rest of the way was almost certainly going to be part of the plan - as others have noted that's plenty possible. Actually physically moving the tanks to Ukraine is certainly a challenge but comparatively a minor one, and one well within the US's capabilities to solve.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 22:21
|
|
|
Ukraine already received a bunch of tanks, like for example refurbished T72's that Czechia and Netherlands bought. Upgraded T55's (also Czech?) etc. Logistics wise this isn't much different, just more?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 22:36
|
|
|
Someone said they thought the US wasn't making m1 abrams anymore, my only thought on that was "ha ha military industrial complex go BRRRRRRRRRRRRRR"
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 22:39
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Ukraine already received a bunch of tanks, like for example refurbished T72's that Czechia and Netherlands bought. Upgraded T55's (also Czech?) etc. Logistics wise this isn't much different, just more? The Russian MBT aren't following the western convention of "just upgrade it". T-90 is an upgrade to T-72, T-80 was upgrade to T-64. And T-14 Armata would have been a completely new platform but it does not actually exist. Or at least we do not know what those parade T-14's are, probably rebuild T-72s again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 22:44
|
|
|
AtomikKrab posted:Someone said they thought the US wasn't making m1 abrams anymore, my only thought on that was "ha ha military industrial complex go BRRRRRRRRRRRRRR" Ironically, even Germany is still building their main battle tanks (because we sell them) -there are even like a dozen more versions of the things after the 2A6. There was even an attempt to create a new "upgunned" Leo-2 with a 140mm cannon, which is approaching howitzer-levels of firepower, but that particular project got killed by the German government back then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 22:47
|
|
|
Der Kyhe posted:The Russian MBT aren't following the western convention of "just upgrade it". T-90 is an upgrade to T-72, T-80 was upgrade to T-64. And T-14 Armata would have been a completely new platform but it does not actually exist. Or at least we do not know what those parade T-14's are, probably rebuild T-72s again. Idk what you're talking about. I just wanted to give a few examples of past successful tank deliveries into Ukraine. Ppl in here talking like tank logistics is some kind of insurmountable problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 22:48
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Upgraded T55's (also Czech?) Nah that was Slovenia
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 22:53
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Idk what you're talking about. I just wanted to give a few examples of past successful tank deliveries into Ukraine. Ppl in here talking like tank logistics is some kind of insurmountable problem. Well I was talking about maintenance logistics. What I am saying that M1 Abrams, Challenger 2s, and Leo2's are basically one lineage each; you can mostly upgrade towards the better one. With the Russian tanks there are different lineages, they cannot be simply "upgraded". This also means that there are differences on how logistics work with spare parts, how people are trained, how the maintenance crews are set up. You can get a donation of three sets of Soviet-era MBTs to find out that there are no interchangeable spare parts between them. With western stuff, this isn't so much of an issue, especially with the stuff that isn't cutting edge; Leo2A2 and Leo 2A4 are basically the same thing with different modules, T-80 and T-90 are two different tanks. When you are in a war you'll need to start frankensteining stuff at some point, and it helps if your stuff is generally compatible between the different versions. Der Kyhe fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Jan 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 22:59
|
|
|
yeah while tanks are big and heavy compared to your car they really aren't a big deal in the grand scheme of things 100 Abrams is 70,000 tons. To put that in perspective the EU distributes about 330,000,000 - 340,000,000 tons of grain alone per year. while Abrams are large and bulky, they aren't too large and bulky for rail travel. The US literally would not use them were that the case; logistics in Europe were a #1 top priority consideration for military vehicle design until the end of the cold war at least and probably never stopped being one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 23:02
|
|
|
Der Kyhe posted:Well I was talking about maintenance logistics. Yes but the M1, Challenger and Leo are completely different tanks, which is... not idea. Still, a better problem to have than "no tanks"
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 23:03
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:yeah while tanks are big and heavy compared to your car they really aren't a big deal in the grand scheme of things Yes; here is a news item with an asshat who drove around with more than 100 paper rolls from a paper mill in a bog-standard trailer: https://www.iltalehti.fi/kotimaa/a/fda6048e-9a0d-4624-bea5-e1fa39f69fdf Each of them weights more than 500kg, so that was at least 50t cargo on your normal lorry, even before having a designated carrier for taking a MBT to the highways. Moving MBTs isn't a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:01 |
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:while Abrams are large and bulky, they aren't too large and bulky for rail travel. The US literally would not use them were that the case; logistics in Europe were a #1 top priority consideration for military vehicle design until the end of the cold war at least and probably never stopped being one. Was this part actually in contention, though? We're moving around Leo-2s per rail all the time, and I'm sure Abrams in Germany also travel mostly by rail instead of clogging up streets. I don't know about Challengers, though. I do expect British tanks to be so shoddily built they'd fall apart if transported by rail (I'm joking, by the way  )
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 23:07
|
|