For those interested in tanks and armoured fighting vehicles

[Barry O]

Just watched the Government telling us Ajax is fine.. obviously GDLS can bend the laws of physics... its a dud.. but getting money back from the Yanks will just not happen..

 

Baz

[spikey]

Please correct me if I've got this totally wrong, but it seems to me from Mrs Spikey's perusals of various German news sites that Ukraine is sooner or later to be favoured with the delivery of an assortment of different tanks from different countries.  How many of these promised tanks will actually be in all respects good to go, i have no idea, but it wouldn't surprise me if some of them are nearer to being fit more for cannibalising for spare parts.

 

Be that as it may, what are the operational implications of such a motley collection?  In particular, do they all use the same ammunition?   Could this face-saving move by various governments actually turn out to be a game-changer for Ukraine, or are there enough potential problems for it to be largely a waste of money?

 

And while I'm asking, who's making Ukraine's ammo?

 

 

[Barry O]

12 hours ago, spikey said:

Please correct me if I've got this totally wrong, but it seems to me from Mrs Spikey's perusals of various German news sites that Ukraine is sooner or later to be favoured with the delivery of an assortment of different tanks from different countries.  How many of these promised tanks will actually be in all respects good to go, i have no idea, but it wouldn't surprise me if some of them are nearer to being fit more for cannibalising for spare parts.

 

Be that as it may, what are the operational implications of such a motley collection?  In particular, do they all use the same ammunition?   Could this face-saving move by various governments actually turn out to be a game-changer for Ukraine, or are there enough potential problems for it to be largely a waste of money?

 

And while I'm asking, who's making Ukraine's ammo?

 

 

The leo2 snd M1(and potentially Leclerc) all use a 120mm smoothbore gun with "NATO: Standard ammunition. CR2 uses a rifled gun.. ammunition is different but can be obtained from various other sources.

 

Spare parts on the other hand.. well the Leo's don't have any apparently, m1 should have plenty, CR2 . Your guess is as good as mine

 

Baz

Edited January 27, 2023 by Barry O

[jjb1970]

On 25/01/2023 at 15:01, Barry O said:

Just watched the Government telling us Ajax is fine.. obviously GDLS can bend the laws of physics... its a dud.. but getting money back from the Yanks will just not happen..

 

Baz

 

At the risk of sounding cynical, too many careers and reputations are in the line. As well, the government is probably in that 'too big to fail' mindset.

 

If common sense did prevail and the government told GD 'we'll see you in court' as they write out a cheque for 600 BAE CV90's people might as the obvious questions - why on earth was ASCOD selected as a base vehicle in the first place and who is responsible?'

 

And we can't have that. It's like trying to find out who decided the WR21 was ready to be ordered to power the T45 destroyer. Ask that question in a certain set of buildings in Bristol and you will either be escorted out or be astonished at how such a big place can suddenly become empty and eerily quiet.

[jjb1970]

Something which seems to be lost in much of the frothing about tanks in the media is that the T-90 was designed and built to fight the Leopard 2, Challenger 1 and M1 (among other things). And since introduction it has seen some significant upgrades. These are also the tanks that Russian ATGMs and RPGs are designed to fight.

 

That doesn't mean the T-90 is as good as western tanks (as things stand I am not sure anyone genuinely knows), but the impression some might get from the media that the M1, Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 are wunderwaffe which will sweep all out of their way may be premature.

 

Something to remember is that tanks are like all other weapons, they are part of a 'system of systems' and the ConOps around which they are designed is different. The ConOps generally falls out of tactical and operational doctrines. In a way, playing top trumps is a bit pointless unless they are to be deployed in the same way to achieve the same ends.

 

In that context it is notable that Russian tanks are significantly lighter and more compact.

 

If looking at the 3 NATO tanks, both Challenger and M1 put more emphasis on protection as built, though Leopard 2 has been heavily up-armoured in the newer variants. The M1 compensated for weight by using a powerful gas turbine engine but good luck to Ukrainian logistics in feeding and maintaining it.

[woodenhead]

On 20/01/2023 at 16:38, Ben B said:

 

Maybe that's the answer, in the event of invasion we fight the dreaded Russkies with hastily re-armed museum pieces, and replicas built for films :)

Almost as cunning as the plan to spread a strategic reserve of steam engines amongst a series of 'in plain sight' locations across the country disguised as 'preservation sites'.   Ready to leap to hauling heavy trains across the UK within days of the country's cities being obliterated by a nuclear strike.

[Clive Mortimore]

4 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

Something which seems to be lost in much of the frothing about tanks in the media is that the T-90 was designed and built to fight the Leopard 2, Challenger 1 and M1 (among other things). And since introduction it has seen some significant upgrades. These are also the tanks that Russian ATGMs and RPGs are designed to fight.

 

That doesn't mean the T-90 is as good as western tanks (as things stand I am not sure anyone genuinely knows), but the impression some might get from the media that the M1, Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 are wunderwaffe which will sweep all out of their way may be premature.

 

Something to remember is that tanks are like all other weapons, they are part of a 'system of systems' and the ConOps around which they are designed is different. The ConOps generally falls out of tactical and operational doctrines. In a way, playing top trumps is a bit pointless unless they are to be deployed in the same way to achieve the same ends.

 

In that context it is notable that Russian tanks are significantly lighter and more compact.

 

If looking at the 3 NATO tanks, both Challenger and M1 put more emphasis on protection as built, though Leopard 2 has been heavily up-armoured in the newer variants. The M1 compensated for weight by using a powerful gas turbine engine but good luck to Ukrainian logistics in feeding and maintaining it.

About 3 regiments of tanks, three (possibly 4 if the French join in) types, firing different ammunition, needing different fuel, different optics and gizmos and their logistics nightmere.  Do they fight as a tank brigade where their combined punch would be effective or are they to be divided up piece meal where there effect will be minimal? Also given all the media hype which every Tom, Dick or Vladimir can see on his telly  telling the Russians what is going to happen isn't that a wise a move. So what have the west actually given the Ukrainians to hit the Russians with? 

Edited January 27, 2023 by Clive Mortimore

[sir douglas]

we have heard about how low the russian tanks numbers are getting but i doubt even they are stupid enough to try using t-34's, there has to be some mis-communication, mis-information or mis-translation somewhere. maybe they are for training rather than for action

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/putin-s-army-desperate-as-decades-old-tanks-brought-back-to-russia-from-laos/ar-AA16NQYb?ocid=mailsignout&pc=U591&cvid=ca8a46d82df845db90fe87bb1b14f673

[Gypsy]

2 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

Something which seems to be lost in much of the frothing about tanks in the media is that the T-90 was designed and built to fight the Leopard 2, Challenger 1 and M1 (among other things). And since introduction it has seen some significant upgrades. These are also the tanks that Russian ATGMs and RPGs are designed to fight.

 

That doesn't mean the T-90 is as good as western tanks (as things stand I am not sure anyone genuinely knows), but the impression some might get from the media that the M1, Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 are wunderwaffe which will sweep all out of their way may be premature.

 

Something to remember is that tanks are like all other weapons, they are part of a 'system of systems' and the ConOps around which they are designed is different. The ConOps generally falls out of tactical and operational doctrines. In a way, playing top trumps is a bit pointless unless they are to be deployed in the same way to achieve the same ends.

 

In that context it is notable that Russian tanks are significantly lighter and more compact.

 

If looking at the 3 NATO tanks, both Challenger and M1 put more emphasis on protection as built, though Leopard 2 has been heavily up-armoured in the newer variants. The M1 compensated for weight by using a powerful gas turbine engine but good luck to Ukrainian logistics in feeding and maintaining it.

 

The T-90 is a T-72 in a slightly newer ASOS frock. Its not even a near peer to Chally/Leo 1. Even the few that DO have the French-made Thales TI gunner's sight that they can't get spares/repalcements for. Firing accuately while on the move cross country? Yeah right, even in daylight...

 

Significantly lighter means less well protected, add to that the ammo storage and its propensity to go bang, catasrophically, and the slow, unreliable autoloader that may or may not occasioanly eat bits of the gunner. Then there's the fact that they've been in the field for over a year now with little opportunity for base maintenance so seals, electrics and a lot of the mechanicals are fried.

 

Its the Leo 2A6 that's being sent, so yep, big and heavy and as ISIS proved with the Turks in Syria, vulnerable to Russian made ATGM like Kornet without infantry support. That said, the Ukrainians have so far supported their tanks - proving that they are considerably better at combined arms manouvre than the Russians...

 

As for the Abrams - anyone who think that the offer of a squadron of them was anything more than a kick uo the xxxx to the Germans is in cloud cuckoo land. They'll loaf around somewhere north of Lviv ready to give any Russians stupid enough to swimn through the swamps on the border with Belarus a fright and close enough to the Polish border for easy access to fuel, spares and base maint...

[KeithMacdonald]

2 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

That doesn't mean the T-90 is as good as western tanks (as things stand I am not sure anyone genuinely knows), but the impression some might get from the media that the M1, Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 are wunderwaffe which will sweep all out of their way may be premature.

 

I concur.

 

It remains to be seen, but some say the "spare tanks" we're giving/leasing/lending/selling (who knows what?) to the Ukraine are not so much to the "top of the range" latest models (road ready, one careful owner) but more a pile of obsolete older models and spare parts.

 

e.g. the latest Leopard model is the 2A7, but the "spare tanks" that are in storage are the 2A4 and 2A5. Like the Leopard 2A4 model sold to Turkey and used in Syria:

 

Quote

“The 2A4 model was the last of the Cold War–era Leopard 2s, which were designed to fight in relatively concentrated units in a fast-paced defensive war against Soviet tank columns, not to survive IEDs and missiles fired by ambushing insurgents in long-term counterinsurgency campaigns where every single loss was a political issue. The 2A4 retains an older boxy turret configurations which affords less protection from modern antitank missiles, especially to the generally more vulnerable rear and side armor, which is a bigger problem in a counterinsurgency environment, where an attack may come from any direction.”

More here:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-leopard-2-was-considered-one-the-worlds-best-tanks-until-24971

 

 

[jjb1970]

2 hours ago, sir douglas said:

we have heard about how low the russian tanks numbers are getting but i doubt even they are stupid enough to try using t-34's, there has to be some mis-communication, mis-information or mis-translation somewhere. maybe they are for training rather than for action

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/putin-s-army-desperate-as-decades-old-tanks-brought-back-to-russia-from-laos/ar-AA16NQYb?ocid=mailsignout&pc=U591&cvid=ca8a46d82df845db90fe87bb1b14f673

 

I would put this in the same category as the 'Russia is running out of missiles' stories we've been getting since last March, the 'Russia is running out of shells' stories which seem to have been popping up for months and the 'Russia is running out of men' stories. At some point these things may all become true, but to date they seem to have an adequate supply of men and equipment to pursue their aims.

[Gypsy]

21 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

 

I would put this in the same category as the 'Russia is running out of missiles' stories we've been getting since last March, the 'Russia is running out of shells' stories which seem to have been popping up for months and the 'Russia is running out of men' stories. At some point these things may all become true, but to date they seem to have an adequate supply of men and equipment to pursue their aims.

 

Yep. That would explain why the volume of Russian artillery fire on the Donbas front has been less than a quarter of what it was last summer since the Ukrainian's September offensive. Clearly they've got plenty of spare howitzer barrels and 152mm shells...

[KeithMacdonald]

Regarding all the "announcements" from UK, US, Germany, etc), of tanks being sent "real soon now" - we hoped - but some might have suspected that all had a whiff of political PR about them, or "vapourware".  Sure enough ...

 

Quote

White House officials warned Wednesday it could take up to a year before Kyiv receives the tanks that President Biden publicly pledged because they would be purchased new with Congressionally approved funds as part of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.

 

https://nypost.com/2023/01/26/ukraine-will-wait-to-get-american-tanks-amid-russia-war/

 

37 minutes ago, Gypsy said:

That would explain why the volume of Russian artillery fire on the Donbas front has been less than a quarter of what it was last summer since the Ukrainian's September offensive.

 

Some might say that's because the Ukrainian forces have already been so decimated there's not enough targets left to fire at, and what remains of the Ukrainian forces are 'conducting an organized retreat' .

 

Meanwhile, it's best not to put too much trust (or hope) in our own version of the Iraqi Minister of Information (Boris Johnson).

 

Quote

Let us be in no doubt. Ukraine is winning and will win this war. Ukrainian hearts are high and their determination is hardening every day.

 

We might hope for better news, but hope is not a strategy.

 

[Gypsy]

24 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

Some might say that's because the Ukrainian forces have already been so decimated there's not enough targets left to fire at, and what remains of the Ukrainian forces are 'conducting an organized retreat' .

 

 

Thanks for that. Its the most I've laughed in days.

[Ohmisterporter]

Earlier this week Sky news ran a story about the Myanmar government holding a parade that included some armour. A couple of the "tanks" seemed to have wooden turrets and star of the show for me was an immaculate looking old British Comet or similar. Did anyone else see that?

[Ohmisterporter]

5 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Also given all the media hype which every Tom, Dick or Vladimir can see on his telly  telling the Russians what is going to happen isn't that a wise a move. 

 

Trouble is there seems to be no control over social media taken onto the battle field by soldiers on both sides. Remember the picture of the Russian troops standing outside their billet somewhere in the Donbas? The location was identified by Ukrainians and the building flattened along with its occupants. Cue stupid boasting by Ukrainian media thereby ensuring that will not be a tactic they can use again. Always assuming the Russian military is not half as stupid as we are being told; not that I believe half of it. Along similar lines when the transfer of Western tanks to Ukraine was announced some thoughtless Russian twit boasted that "they will burn like the others". Hang on a minute, those tanks that burn so easily are Russian made and used by both sides. What would the parents of Russian tank crews have thought when they heard their kids were in tanks that burn easily? 

[Barry O]

16 minutes ago, Ohmisterporter said:

 

Trouble is there seems to be no control over social media taken onto the battle field by soldiers on both sides. Remember the picture of the Russian troops standing outside their billet somewhere in the Donbas? The location was identified by Ukrainians and the building flattened along with its occupants. Cue stupid boasting by Ukrainian media thereby ensuring that will not be a tactic they can use again. Always assuming the Russian military is not half as stupid as we are being told; not that I believe half of it. Along similar lines when the transfer of Western tanks to Ukraine was announced some thoughtless Russian twit boasted that "they will burn like the others". Hang on a minute, those tanks that burn so easily are Russian made and used by both sides. What would the parents of Russian tank crews have thought when they heard their kids were in tanks that burn easily? 

It was Putin who said "they will burn".. shame the Russian people are unable to stop him....

[sir douglas]

3 hours ago, Ohmisterporter said:

Earlier this week Sky news ran a story about the Myanmar government holding a parade that included some armour. A couple of the "tanks" seemed to have wooden turrets and star of the show for me was an immaculate looking old British Comet or similar. Did anyone else see that?

 

found it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QkNdajRDD8&ab_channel=SkyNewsAustralia

 

yes thats a comet

[jjb1970]

7 hours ago, Ohmisterporter said:

 

Trouble is there seems to be no control over social media taken onto the battle field by soldiers on both sides. Remember the picture of the Russian troops standing outside their billet somewhere in the Donbas? The location was identified by Ukrainians and the building flattened along with its occupants. Cue stupid boasting by Ukrainian media thereby ensuring that will not be a tactic they can use again. Always assuming the Russian military is not half as stupid as we are being told; not that I believe half of it. Along similar lines when the transfer of Western tanks to Ukraine was announced some thoughtless Russian twit boasted that "they will burn like the others". Hang on a minute, those tanks that burn so easily are Russian made and used by both sides. What would the parents of Russian tank crews have thought when they heard their kids were in tanks that burn easily? 

 

In war time it seems that whatever rational thought might normally be found in politics and the media leaves the room.

[jjb1970]

9 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

Regarding all the "announcements" from UK, US, Germany, etc), of tanks being sent "real soon now" - we hoped - but some might have suspected that all had a whiff of political PR about them, or "vapourware".  Sure enough ...

 

The M1 seems to have been pledged as the price of getting Germany to agree to allow countries to send Leopard 2 tanks.

 

The Americans had been adamant that they would not send the M1 and there were plenty of entirely rational arguments why the M1 was not the right tank for Ukraine but Germany seems to have made a stand and held to their position that if NATO wanted them to let the Leopard go to Ukraine then the US also had to send tanks.

[Barry O]

Good reason not to buy any armaments from German companies.. as was also noted in the Falklands campaign...so why does UK still do it  not just tank upgrades (CR3),  new vehicles (Boxer), trucks (MAN ) which are not the best in the world...

 

By supporting the Germans our land  vehicle producers have... gone!

 

Baz

[jjb1970]

10 minutes ago, Barry O said:

Good reason not to buy any armaments from German companies.. as was also noted in the Falklands campaign...so why does UK still do it  not just tank upgrades (CR3),  new vehicles (Boxer), trucks (MAN ) which are not the best in the world...

 

By supporting the Germans our land  vehicle producers have... gone!

 

Baz

 

The railway journalist Roger Ford was so right with his seventh law of railways:

 

Seventh Law ‘The attractiveness of technology is directly proportional to the square of the distance of its factory of origin from London’

 

I wish I had a pound for every time people insisted that domestic goods were garbage and why-oh-why don't we be sensible and buy this wonder stuff from overseas?

 

I have no issue when overseas stuff actually is better, subject to a big caveat for military hardware in terms of maintaining independence as highlighted by Barry, but in many cases it turns out to be no better or worse. And if the domestic stuff works and does the job then there's a good argument for maintaining a domestic industrial base even if ultimately it is not as good.

 

In my own limited experience I have formed a very high opinion of Japanese and Korean maritime engineering and ship building (they are the best ship builders in the world and make the best big engines) but I still think military vessels should be built in Britain even if they cost a lot more. I would qualify that by saying I would make an exception for things like the RFA tankers where the Koreans can make them more quickly for less and probably to a higher standard and when our yards are highly unlikely to use such orders as a springboard to compete to build commercial tankers.

[Ohmisterporter]

Something that intrigues me about pictures of tank destruction in Ukraine is how many of them are fitted with reactive armour boxes. Do they not offer sufficient protection against modern anti-tank weapons i.e. are they only a protection against RPGs and similar?

[KeithMacdonald]

7 hours ago, Barry O said:

By supporting the Germans our land  vehicle producers have... gone!

 

It seems it's complicated by two conflicting desires:

1) Buy British

2) NATO standardisation and interoperability

 

Meanwhile, appealing to the RMWeb inmates "kit builder" approach:

"How to build our own British tank"

 

Let’s Build a Tank – The UK AFV Industry
 

Quote

 

Tank Components - Below is a short list of UK based and/or UK-owned defence vehicle equipment providers, many of them providing systems to the Ajax, CR3 and Boxer programmes (that are fronted by the big primes like RBSL and General Dynamics)

 

 

https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2023/01/lets-build-a-tank-the-uk-afv-industry/

 

[Gypsy]

3 hours ago, Ohmisterporter said:

Something that intrigues me about pictures of tank destruction in Ukraine is how many of them are fitted with reactive armour boxes. Do they not offer sufficient protection against modern anti-tank weapons i.e. are they only a protection against RPGs and similar?

 

RPGs and direct fire ATGMs if you're lucky (and someone has actually bothered put the ERA in the boxes). Otherwise they just provide limited stand-off protection for impact fused munitions. Most modern NATO AT munitions have a 'top attack' mode anyway - they climb before they hit the target then dive downwards to impact the top of the turret or decks.