Blyatskrieg

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3146
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Thu Jan 05, 2023 8:34 am

TopBadger wrote:
Thu Jan 05, 2023 7:34 am
"On the table" <> "going to Ukraine"... at least not yet. But hopefully this is signposting another salami slice.
Damn strong table if it can handle a 25-tonne IFV.

But if this does go ahead, it's great news. IFVs are probably what Ukraine needs most, at least after a continuous supply of ammunition.

This isn't "IFVs are more important than tanks", I'd add. They work together. This is more that Ukrainian ground forces are shorter of IFVs than they are of tanks, and they need a reasonable amount of both to make the formations they need. I noted their use of Humvees and similar above, that can be considered analagous to light cavalry. IFV + tank formations can be considered more analagous to heavy cavalry, and would open up more options for manoeuvre warfare.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3146
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Thu Jan 05, 2023 8:57 am

Also France is supplying AMX-10 RCs to Ukraine. A heated debate on the definition of "Tank" is already underway. France classifies these as "Chars", and the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe treats it as a tank due to its weight, full-traverse turret and main gun calibre. My own take is that it is not a tank, but that I'd be very happy for it to be considered as one if it helped remove one of Scholz's favourite excuses.

What it actually is is an armoured car with a big gun, suitable for reconnaissance and fire support. They'd be able to keep up with the lighter formations I mentioned, and give them very substantial fire support with their 105mm main guns. I've mentioned the challenge of infantry fire support and how the usual approach is to use IFVs that carry the infantry and support them, but that it could be done by pairing firepower vehicles with APCs - the AMX-10 RC is one of the only vehicles around that could be sent to enable the second approach.

User avatar
TopBadger
Snowbonk
Posts: 604
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:33 pm
Location: Halfway up

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by TopBadger » Thu Jan 05, 2023 9:33 am

Not sure what the debate is given it's a light tank... but that any debate exists isn't a good sign.

The aim is for Ukraine to win this war... and the affront to Russia will be losing it, rather than what was supplied that caused the loss.

It seems to me that the western strategy is still for Russia to lose 'gently' - which doesn't change the end result and simply extends the suffering on all sides.
You can't polish a turd...
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3146
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Thu Jan 05, 2023 10:41 am

TopBadger wrote:
Thu Jan 05, 2023 9:33 am
Not sure what the debate is given it's a light tank... but that any debate exists isn't a good sign.


The debate exists because there are different ways to define a tank, and that isn't just minor differences in defitinitions, but differences based on whether or not it is assessed according to it's constructional features or intended role - "structure" and "doctrine" on the (non-serious) diagram below

Image

So there's people who say the AMX-10-RC isn't a tank due to its wheels. Then again, it has skid-steering, meaning its wheeled drivetrain still actually handles a lot like a tracked one. Personally, I prefer role-based definitions.

A role based definition of a tank might be something like "A vehicle designed to manoeuvre against the enemy, engage them primarily with direct fire within visual range and break through their lines and advance into their operational depth. To achieve this, it requires heavy direct fire weaponry and armour to resist enemy fire so as to enable it to engage at close range"

That would describe a main battle tank (MBT), but light tanks complicate things as there's never really been a single consistent role for light tanks. The AMX-10-RC has good mobility. It has a 105mm gun, albeit not as powerful a 105mm as most 105mm tank guns, it has armour sufficient against 14.5mm heavy machine guns and, at the front and only at range, autocannon. However, it wasn't primarily designed as a vehicle to directly engage the enemy, instead it was designed for armour reconnaissance - to go forward to lurk and gather information, but to be able to punch through a screening force, fight its way back out if needed, or to engage targets of opportunity. This is pretty analagous to the British FV107 Scimitar in role, a vehicle which also gets called a light tank.

What I will say for definite, though, is than an AMX-10-RC is not in the same class, or ever remotely intended to be in the same class, as a Leopard 1 or 2, a Challenger, a Leopard, an Abrams, or a T-64 derivative.

Ultimately, whether or not it is a tank shouldn't matter. Militarily, what matters is how Ukraine can integrate it into their armed forces. Given their successful use of light, fast forces, AMX-10-RCs are perfect for them. Politically, though, it does matter, as countries are holding back "tanks" and making the excuse that other nations haven't sent "tanks", so if anyone from the SPD is in earshot, I will vociferously argue that both the AMX-10-RC and the FV107 Scimitar are tanks.
It seems to me that the western strategy is still for Russia to lose 'gently' - which doesn't change the end result and simply extends the suffering on all sides.
That's my worry, and its absurd. It extends the suffering, and it ups the other costs as well as the human costs. Ukraine should get aid as fast as they can absorb it into their armed forces. At this point, it's quite clear Russia does not have a response to western aid. If it is operated by Ukrainians and isn't either a nuclear weapon or primarily noted as a delivery mechanism for nuclear weapons, there's no reason not to send it.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3146
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Thu Jan 05, 2023 11:09 am

One further point I'll make about armoured vehicles.

If they are committed now, and crew training begins, they'll be ready for an offensive in the latter part of spring, when ground conditions begin to suit offensive action in northern Ukraine.

If they aren't, an offensive then, which appears quite likely, will take place without support from western tanks and IFVs. The troops will still go in, but they'll be in pickup trucks instead.

Imrael
Fuzzable
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:59 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Imrael » Thu Jan 05, 2023 11:16 am

A bit of casual wiki-ing suggests that the 105mm gun on the tank is potentially a good AT gun (with APFSDS ammo) and that it may come with night vision equipment. I think the gun alone does "up the stakes" a bit.

I've always thought that the argument against supplying Abrams - that it might be hard to operate and need complex logistics - could have some merit. Not so for Leopard variants of course.

User avatar
TopBadger
Snowbonk
Posts: 604
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:33 pm
Location: Halfway up

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by TopBadger » Thu Jan 05, 2023 11:19 am

EACLucifer wrote:
Thu Jan 05, 2023 10:41 am
I will vociferously argue that both the AMX-10-RC and the FV107 Scimitar are tanks.
And I will agree with you...
TopBadger wrote:
Thu Jan 05, 2023 9:33 am
It seems to me that the western strategy is still for Russia to lose 'gently' - which doesn't change the end result and simply extends the suffering on all sides.
EACLucifer wrote:
Thu Jan 05, 2023 10:41 am
That's my worry, and its absurd. It extends the suffering, and it ups the other costs as well as the human costs. Ukraine should get aid as fast as they can absorb it into their armed forces. At this point, it's quite clear Russia does not have a response to western aid. If it is operated by Ukrainians and isn't either a nuclear weapon or primarily noted as a delivery mechanism for nuclear weapons, there's no reason not to send it.
I can understand a western view to support Russia losing slowly / gently if there were some realistic chance of Putin being replaced by someone with the sense to end this war.

However, I think it's unlikely he'll be replaced, and even if he is it doesn't seem likely that his successor will be any better.

Western intelligence analysts may have a different view on who that successor is and how they would behave (ending the war would surely be a popular political decision), but that's a bet that appears to be some ways off and can go the wrong way. I'd favor supplying the means for Ukraine to end the war this year, irrespective of who is in charge in the Kremlin or who might be in charge in the White House next year.
You can't polish a turd...
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3146
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Thu Jan 05, 2023 11:34 am

Imrael wrote:
Thu Jan 05, 2023 11:16 am
A bit of casual wiki-ing suggests that the 105mm gun on the tank is potentially a good AT gun (with APFSDS ammo) and that it may come with night vision equipment. I think the gun alone does "up the stakes" a bit.
It's a reasonably potent gun, and will kill anything except an MBT, and have a decent chance against MBTs except against the frontal armour. It can also throw an effective high-explosive shell for attacking things other than armoured vehicles.

It's not the most powerful western tank gun that's been sent, though. Slovenian M-55s, heavily upgraded T-55s, carry an L7 derivative 105mm that uses a more powerful cartridge than the gun carried by the AMX-10-RC.
I've always thought that the argument against supplying Abrams - that it might be hard to operate and need complex logistics - could have some merit. Not so for Leopard variants of course.
A lot of the arguments regarding the Abrams and logistics are based on misunderstandings, though. It does not require jet fuel, for example. The Americans run it on jet fuel as that suits their logistics, but it can run on most liquid hydrocarbons, and the Aussies run theirs on diesel. As for maintenance of the turbine, the Abrams uses a powerpack, like most modern military vehicles. People don't work on the turbine in situ, they pull the powerpack, put another one in, and send the tank back to its job while they work on the turbine in the depot. That could work in Ukraine by replacing the depot with a railhead - powerpacks could be repaired in Poland. It's not like maintenance for Abrams won't be needed in Poland anyway, as Poland's bought them to replace the T-72s they sent to Ukraine.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3146
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Thu Jan 05, 2023 12:10 pm

The good news on the "tank or not" front is that parts of the German press are calling the AMX-10-RC a "Kampfpanzer", and that Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmer is talking about partner countries leading the way and that the ball is now in Berlin.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3146
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:24 pm

Just to be clear re: the claims of a 36-hour Russian ceasefire. They've routinely shelled when and where they claim they will not shell. It is either b.llsh.t meant to divide the west, or b.llsh.t meant to buy time for his battered forces, especially as the ground should be starting to freeze over the coming days. Nobody should take it seriously, or judge Ukraine remotely negatively for treating it with the contempt it deserves.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3146
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Thu Jan 05, 2023 6:40 pm

Süddeutsche Zeitung talking about Germany supplying Marder IFVs

Not sure how solid their sources are. The idea that Marders would trigger some sort of reprisal while MARS 2s and PzH2000s wouldn't is quite frankly ludicrous. The same is true of Leopard 1s, and honestly Leopard 2s are no more of a modern military threat or offensive weapon than PzH2000s

User avatar
dyqik
Light of Blast
Posts: 6463
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by dyqik » Thu Jan 05, 2023 7:50 pm

Biden says that Bradleys will be supplied and that Germany will supply Marders, as well as another Patriot battery (I think maybe two - one US and one German?)

https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/statu ... 7978638336 with link to White House statement.

User avatar
bolo
Catbabel
Posts: 915
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:17 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by bolo » Thu Jan 05, 2023 7:53 pm

The full White House statement (boldface added):
President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. and Chancellor Olaf Scholz spoke by phone on January 5, 2023 to exchange views on the ongoing war of aggression waged by Russia against Ukraine. They reiterated their support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence. They reaffirmed their unwavering solidarity with Ukraine and the Ukrainian people in the face of Russia’s aggression.

President Biden and Chancellor Scholz expressed their common determination to continue to provide the necessary financial, humanitarian, military and diplomatic support to Ukraine for as long as needed. To this end, the United States intends to supply Ukraine with Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles, and Germany intends to provide Ukraine with Marder Infantry Fighting Vehicles. Both countries plan to train Ukrainian forces on the respective systems.

In light of Russia’s ongoing missile and drone attacks against Ukraine’s critical infrastructure, President Biden and Chancellor Scholz affirmed their intention to further support Ukraine’s urgent requirement for air defense capabilities. In late December, the United States announced its donation of a Patriot air defense missile battery to Ukraine. Germany will join the United States in supplying an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine.

President Biden and Chancellor Scholz expressed appreciation for the military support provided by other Allies and partners to Ukraine, endorsed the ongoing coordination efforts of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, and welcomed additional donations of air defense systems and combat vehicles.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3146
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Thu Jan 05, 2023 10:18 pm

Suddenly there's a lot of movement in international aid. Germany apparently not ruling out Leopard 2s, Cleverly saying “Tanks may be part of new weapons transfers to Ukraine”

If people are looking for armoured fire support that isn't tanks, incidentally, the Italians have the Centauro and the Americans have the Stryker MGS. The Centauro appears to be being replaced by the Centauro II, so perhaps the original can be spared, and the Stryker MGS is being retired at the moment. Both have full-power 105mm guns on 8x8 chassis with armour similar to that of the AMX-10-RC.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Light of Blast
Posts: 6125
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Fri Jan 06, 2023 8:37 am

On the Bradley, it has an interesting history. Here's the classic account of its design: https://youtu.be/aXQ2lO3ieBA

ETA, fiction obviously but contains some truths about Pentagon procurement processes.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3146
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:15 am

According to a Politico article, Ukraine's figured out how to bodge Sea Sparrows onto Buk TELARs, which would give them a good, mobile and cost effective air defense option to supplement systems like IRIS-T and NASAMS, or to accompany advancing troops. Politico have made some rather odd and downright wrong statements before on this sort of thing, so take with a pinch of salt.

Then there's Russian discussions regarding shell hunger. This thread by Rob Lee discusses several Russian milbloggers take on the situation.

Notably they discuss poor quality of 2022 production ammunition, and talk about the amount that Russia can produce or recondition - three hundred thousand shells a year or less, which is a third or less of current production in countries willing to supply ammunition to Ukraine, according to Jakub Janovsky's count.

Via WarTranslated, Dva Majora talks about defects in recently produced Russian ammunition.

They also talk about the amount of ammunition expended, which is higher for the same effect than Ukraine expends due to less accurate guns. Not mentioned but relevant is that poor command, control, communications and intelligence also see Russia using their ammunition less effectively and thus also increasing the amount they have to expend to achieve the same effect.

User avatar
bolo
Catbabel
Posts: 915
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:17 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by bolo » Fri Jan 06, 2023 7:57 pm

$3 billion more from U.S. DOD today, including 50 Bradleys and a bunch of other stuff:

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/R ... r-ukraine/

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3146
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Sat Jan 07, 2023 8:00 am

bolo wrote:
Fri Jan 06, 2023 7:57 pm
$3 billion more from U.S. DOD today, including 50 Bradleys and a bunch of other stuff:

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/R ... r-ukraine/
It's a huge tranche of aid, but it's also worth noting it's only a fraction of funding that was approved most recently.

The Bradleys and M113s equate to a hundred and fifty armoured vehicles providing armoured transport for fifteen hundred or so mechanised infantry, with a third of them - the Bradleys - carrying 25mm chain guns and highly capable anti-tank missile launchers to support those dismounts.

Almost two hundred mobility vehicles - HMMWVs and MRAPs - which have already been used with considerable success by Ukrainian forces

18 M109s and an equivalent number of ammunition carriers to accompany them. These self-propelled guns have previously been supplied by the UK (purchased as surplus as the UK doesn't operate them), Norway and Italy, and have been successful. Though the variant isn't specified, these could be the M109A6 Paladin, which is upgraded compared to the M109A3/A4 sent by Britain and Norway. These aren't quite on the level of PzH2000s or Krabs, but are still extremely capable SPGs.

36 M119 105mm howitzers - derived from the L119 in turn derived from the L118 - these are light, mobile and quick firing and can be towed by almost anything. They seem to be well received to the point that claims that the 105mm howitzer is obsolescent due to the advent of the 120mm mortar need to be revised/abandoned.

Ammunition for all of the above and other systems too.

Four thousand "Zuni" five inch aircraft rockets. I assume these are the unguided variants that date back to the fifties, but they have hard hitting warheads and suit existing Ukrainian aircraft tactics.

RIM-7 "Sea Sparrow" surface-to-air missiles. These were originally designed for shooting down missiles by adapting air-to-air missiles to the ship-launched role, and will be launched from Ukraine's Buk launchers. This may be the product of previous Polish experiments with combining western missiles with Warsaw Pact launchers, or it may be a new concept. The RIM-7 has a shorter range than the 9M38 missile used with the Buk, but the two could be combined, with RIM-7s used for nearer targets. This combination will allow the Buks - and their experienced and talented crews - to remain operational when otherwise they would have run out of missiles, and allow a relatively cheap missile to be used against both Russian aircraft and their missile attacks against civilians.

There's also small arms, spare parts, night vision systems and other extremely useful kit. And this is in the context of aid from European countries stepping up too.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3146
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Sat Jan 07, 2023 11:43 am

Feels like western tanks might be soon. Finland's saying they'll send Leopard 2s if other people do - they have a number in storage - and Poland's been hinting too. Now Poland's ordered a whole load more Abrams, which would fit with being willing to part with their Leopard 2s. Britain, incidentally, has leant Poland some Challengers and crews, which frees them to move their own tanks around a little more.

If Leopard 2s are sent, it would be hard to argue against transferring the Leopard 1s currently held in Germany. Modernised Leopard 1s would still be very useful in action, and could fulfill many of the roles tanks are used in as well as the models currently in that role, or perhaps better in some cases, though they'd struggle to defeat an MBT head on unless they were given exactly the right ammunition.

None of these should be expected to go immediately into battle. Training crews takes time, and they would be most useful in properly organised mechanised formations. That said, Ukraine's well aware of how to properly organise a mechanised formation, and no stranger to concepts like tanks and IFVs. The western kit doesn't all need to go in together. There's no reason Leopards couldn't punch a hole for BMPs and BTRs to exploit, or for Bradleys and Marders to carry dismounts to screen for T-80s and T-64s etc.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Light of Blast
Posts: 6125
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Sat Jan 07, 2023 12:50 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Sat Jan 07, 2023 11:43 am
Feels like western tanks might be soon. Finland's saying they'll send Leopard 2s if other people do - they have a number in storage - and Poland's been hinting too. Now Poland's ordered a whole load more Abrams, which would fit with being willing to part with their Leopard 2s. Britain, incidentally, has leant Poland some Challengers and crews, which frees them to move their own tanks around a little more.

If Leopard 2s are sent, it would be hard to argue against transferring the Leopard 1s currently held in Germany. Modernised Leopard 1s would still be very useful in action, and could fulfill many of the roles tanks are used in as well as the models currently in that role, or perhaps better in some cases, though they'd struggle to defeat an MBT head on unless they were given exactly the right ammunition.

None of these should be expected to go immediately into battle. Training crews takes time, and they would be most useful in properly organised mechanised formations. That said, Ukraine's well aware of how to properly organise a mechanised formation, and no stranger to concepts like tanks and IFVs. The western kit doesn't all need to go in together. There's no reason Leopards couldn't punch a hole for BMPs and BTRs to exploit, or for Bradleys and Marders to carry dismounts to screen for T-80s and T-64s etc.
Whatever Finland and Poland want to do Germany still needs to agree to the transfer of the Leopards. As well as the legal side of it German cooperation will probably be useful in terms of things like supply of spare parts.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3146
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:11 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Sat Jan 07, 2023 12:50 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Sat Jan 07, 2023 11:43 am
Feels like western tanks might be soon. Finland's saying they'll send Leopard 2s if other people do - they have a number in storage - and Poland's been hinting too. Now Poland's ordered a whole load more Abrams, which would fit with being willing to part with their Leopard 2s. Britain, incidentally, has leant Poland some Challengers and crews, which frees them to move their own tanks around a little more.

If Leopard 2s are sent, it would be hard to argue against transferring the Leopard 1s currently held in Germany. Modernised Leopard 1s would still be very useful in action, and could fulfill many of the roles tanks are used in as well as the models currently in that role, or perhaps better in some cases, though they'd struggle to defeat an MBT head on unless they were given exactly the right ammunition.

None of these should be expected to go immediately into battle. Training crews takes time, and they would be most useful in properly organised mechanised formations. That said, Ukraine's well aware of how to properly organise a mechanised formation, and no stranger to concepts like tanks and IFVs. The western kit doesn't all need to go in together. There's no reason Leopards couldn't punch a hole for BMPs and BTRs to exploit, or for Bradleys and Marders to carry dismounts to screen for T-80s and T-64s etc.
Whatever Finland and Poland want to do Germany still needs to agree to the transfer of the Leopards. As well as the legal side of it German cooperation will probably be useful in terms of things like supply of spare parts.
Yes, but Germany does seem to be coming round, and are an increasingly important provider of materiel, and effectively joint first to send western IFVs. Germany's excuse regarding sending things - or allowing industry to sell them from stock - is that other nations aren't doing so. If other nations are trying to send German-made MBTs, that excuse is gone.

There's also things like this article, in which there's mention of discussions with allied countries and that Leopard 2s haven't been ruled out. If I've missed anything important in the article please tell me as my German is atrocious.

There's politicians within the coalition and the opposition calling for their transfer, with Scholz frequently accused of dragging his heels. Scholz seems to be emphasising wanting to do things along with NATO partners, so perhaps the relevant backroom conversations have finally got somewhere.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3146
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Mon Jan 09, 2023 2:49 pm

While there's nothing solid at all on Leopards - lots of ministers within countries advocating for them, not so much official government positions - Sky is reporting Britain is considering sending around ten Challenger 2s.

Assuming, for a moment, that this does happen

In some ways, it's a symbolic gesture. Ten tanks is not a game changer. Indeed while there is a qualatitive difference between western tanks and Soviet ones, it's not as big as some people think. One of the main reasons to send western tanks is to increase overall tank numbers, not just because they are better tanks.

They'll be a logistical headache. The Challenger 2 is one of the biggest, heaviest tanks in the world, and while it's gun is excellent - a Challenger holds the record for longest range direct fire tank on tank kill - it isn't used really by anyone else. It's a rifled gun, which gives it that long, accurate range, but it isn't the same as the smoothbores used by most of NATO, so the ammunition's going to be specific to this one unit.

It's not invincible. It's got a reputation for toughness, and it is probably the toughest - or at least joint toughest - in the world in terms of armour. It can still be defeated by a big enough warhead, an attack from the top or rear, and it can still lose a track to a mine.

It isn't the most modern in terms of electronics and so on. The British Army neglected tanks for some time, meaning Challenger 2s are a bit dated. Though more advanced than basically all the tanks in the conflict right now, they lack features some of the most modern tanks have, such as active protection systems.

There aren't many available. Should it prove successful, it will be the Abrams, Leopard and perhaps things like the Leclerc too needed to make up numbers.

What it is, though, is unquestionably a tank. Unquestionably an MBT, indeed compared to the tanks in theatre, it would function almost as a heavy tank. It's also unquestionably western, and could push other nations in the same way Macron's transfer of AMX-10-RCs did.

But it's still far from confirmed.

User avatar
bjn
After Pie
Posts: 2417
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm
Location: London

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by bjn » Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:31 pm

Is sending just ten Challenger 2s more effort than it's worth? You have a distinct logistics train needed to support their armament and parts, along with training of crews and maintenance engineers. Would all that effort be better spent elsewhere?

Also, as I understand it, they aren't crying out for tanks but rather want more battle taxis.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3146
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Mon Jan 09, 2023 4:10 pm

bjn wrote:
Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:31 pm
Is sending just ten Challenger 2s more effort than it's worth? You have a distinct logistics train needed to support their armament and parts, along with training of crews and maintenance engineers. Would all that effort be better spent elsewhere?

Also, as I understand it, they aren't crying out for tanks but rather want more battle taxis.
Zelenskyy, Reznikov and Zaluzhny are all calling for tanks.

Thing is, if the tanks are available, they're available. It could well be that that many Challengers can be spared, and if they can, they are there - it's not like a new build situation where they could instead choose Warriors. And Oryx has just reported Britain supplying M113s, too, though gods alone know where they came from to begin with.

Would a single squadron of ten Challenger 2s be useful? Absolutely, the question is just what they get used for. At worst, they can park them on the Belarusian border to free up more compatible tanks. But they could be used on active frontlines without too much trouble. Challenger 2s aren't the fastest tanks out there, but a) nor are the T72s they'd likely be operating alongside and b) in a defensive role, that isn't necessarily the most important thing. Yes, they need their own ammunition supply, but that isn't impossible, especially if they are used in a defensive role. They have the optics/electronics/fire control to allow them to function at long range, they have available APFSDS rounds that can penetrate armour at long ranges, they have HESH rounds that give them an advantage against troops sheltering in structures, and they have very, very thick armour. While they aren't terribly fast, they have a pretty decent off-road speed due to their very good suspension. And while they need four crew, the manual loader can get the first few rounds off quicker than an autoloader, especially the sort used on T-72s, which have a relatively slow design that proved a disadvantage in the fighting around Chernihiv early in this year's escalation.

It's also ten extra tanks, in an army that needs as many as they can get, and one would expect that their provision would be accompanied by training, given how much training has been done in the UK already. Ukraine's been putting captured T-62s into service, which are every bit as non-standard, but also about as inferior to a T-72/80/upgraded T-64 as a Challenger is superior to them.

And then there's the most important factor of all - if Britain supplies them, it demolishes the argument that western countries aren't sending modern tanks. And it's pretty hard to argue against sending - or allowing the purchase of - IFVs if MBTs are already on their way. And if they can operate a Challenger 2, it demolishes the idea that western tanks are too heavy/complex - and idea that is frankly rooted in prejudiced assumptions about Ukraine anyway. Ten Challenger 2s as a gateway to Abrams and Leopards - and potentially more Challengers as there's about eighty currently not slated to be upgraded into Challenger 3s - is absolutely worth the hassle.

User avatar
TopBadger
Snowbonk
Posts: 604
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:33 pm
Location: Halfway up

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by TopBadger » Mon Jan 09, 2023 4:28 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Mon Jan 09, 2023 4:10 pm
Ten Challenger 2s as a gateway to Abrams and Leopards
For me it's this... Germany doesn't want to be the first to supply, or enabling (via agreeing export licenses) the supply, of MBT''s. I think there are also logistical arguments about how well Ukraine will deal with western tanks.

Supplying 10 Challengers is the gateway that is needed, because based on what we know we can expect Ukraine to integrate them just fine.
You can't polish a turd...
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html

Post Reply