For those interested in tanks and armoured fighting vehicles

[OnTheBranchline]

20 hours ago, Ohmisterporter said:

For a more evenly balanced view of the Ukraine war my daily read is the warnewsupdates.blogspot. The blog is run by a former Russian diplomat (I may have got that slightly wrong but he was something like that), who now lives in Montreal. His father was Russian and his mother Ukrainian so he has relatives in both countries. Neither side is talking to the other at the moment. However, he does talk to both families and can get better facts to report on the horrendous casualties suffered by both sides. Hence I cannot see any chance of Ukraine avoiding settling this war without major concessions; the army is simply in a giant meat grinder with few men in reserve whereas the Russians have just called up another half million men. Also the Russian artillery is firing around 20,000 shells daily compared to 1,500 fired by the Ukrainians. Despite which there are commentators in the West saying the Ukrainians will win if they can only be supplied with more advanced weapons in ever greater numbers. This war, like most others, started and will end around a conference table. So cut out the war in the middle and get talking. "Jaw, jaw is better than war, war" a great man said.

‘Russian thinks Russia will win’

 

News at 11

 

🤭

[Calnefoxile]

2 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/ukrainian-crews-arrive-in-the-uk-to-train-on-british-tanks/

 

Looks like a Airbus KC2 Voyager into Brize Norton, then a bus down the A420, A419, etc to Tidworth?

 

More like Bovington than Tidworth for training.

 

I have it on good authority that the 3 Tank regiments have been told to 'donate' 1 Challenger 2 per Squadron for Ukraine.

 

So they're all getting them ready now.

 

Regards

 

Neal.

[Barry O]

1 hour ago, Calnefoxile said:

 

More like Bovington than Tidworth for training.

 

I have it on good authority that the 3 Tank regiments have been told to 'donate' 1 Challenger 2 per Squadron for Ukraine.

 

So they're all getting them ready now.

 

Regards

 

Neal.

Numbers don't add up?  Unless we aren't using type 56 regiments again.. and one regiment may not have all of its tanks.

 

Tidworth has the same training aids as Bovi so you can train at either.. in day's gone by Gunnery would have been trained at Lulworth....

Baz

Edited February 3, 2023 by Barry O

[jjb1970]

I can't help feeling quite a few western countries are taking actions to try and avoid being criticized for not supporting Ukraine rather than trying to do anything useful.

 

The Leopard 1 was lightly protected when it was the MBT of a number of NATO armies, let alone after several decades of advances in anti-tank weapons. Assuming the media reports of them being given to Ukraine are true (always a risky assumption) then what does Germany expect Ukraine to do with the Leopard 1? If deployed on the battlefield it is going to be RPG fodder, let alone fodder for the latest Russian anti-tank weapons.

 

We can see countries squirming over Leopard 2 tanks, trying to offer enough to avoid criticism at the same time as dragging feet. In fairness some of it does reflect a genuine problem that a large part of the Leopard 2 inventory is spare part donors unlikely ever to operate again without a full factory rebuild, a much lower number of tanks which can be made battle ready quickly and a problem with spare parts availability. The US M1 tanks to be given to Ukraine will have inferior armour protection compared to US tanks and lose some of their most advanced equipment as defeating Russia is less important than risking Russia getting access to a US spec model (which would then immediately be shared with China).

 

If the war in Ukraine was really as important as politicians are telling us countries could do more, and risks of Russia and China figuring out the secrets of our tanks would be worth taking (and if things are going as well as the media is telling us, not that much of a risk anyway). The technology concern may already be a bit late. Russia and China now know all they need to know about HIMARS and a few other key weapons systems.

 

I find something distasteful about encouraging Ukraine and all the triumphalist rhetoric whilst taking actions which indicate a different story and priorities 

Edited February 4, 2023 by jjb1970

[jjb1970]

A nice tank chat revisited on the Swedish S-Tank:

 

 

[peanuts]

interesting 

 

 

[Barry O]

2 hours ago, peanuts said:

interesting 

 

 

Yep and unless they go to a good furnace they need to stay there...

 

It was alleged that a Chieftain put a.303 round through the turret of a Canadian Leo 1 in Hogne ranges. I wasn't there so can't cooperate the story but it was a woefully unprotected vehicle. The Germans went for high speed, big gun, low armour...

 

Baz

[burgundy]

54 minutes ago, Barry O said:

It was alleged that a Chieftain put a.303 round through the turret of a Canadian Leo 1 in Hogne ranges. I wasn't there so can't cooperate the story but it was a woefully unprotected vehicle. The Germans went for high speed, big gun, low armour...

Their emphasis was on beweglichkeit - which is rather more than just mobility, which is Google's one word translation. In German army terms, as I understand it, it comprehends a whole philosophy of staying ahead of the inevitable Russian artillery barrage. 

Best wishes 

Eric 

[jjb1970]

8 hours ago, Barry O said:

Yep and unless they go to a good furnace they need to stay there...

 

It was alleged that a Chieftain put a.303 round through the turret of a Canadian Leo 1 in Hogne ranges. I wasn't there so can't cooperate the story but it was a woefully unprotected vehicle. The Germans went for high speed, big gun, low armour...

 

Baz

 

I never heard this story but the Leopard 1 was known as a very lightly protected tank. They seemed to carry the same philosophy over to early Leopard 2 models (up to around the A4) before changing tack and adding a lot of additional armour.

 

Which again begs the question of what Germany expects Ukraine to do with Leopard 1 tanks if the story about them sending up to 88 from storage is true.

 

It just doesn't add up. If they've been in storage for decades they'll need a lot of work to make ready for use. And at the end of it you'd still have a lightly armed, outgunned tank not suitable for the battlefield. 

 

The old 105mm gun was probably the best tank gun in the world in its day but there were reasons it was replaced 40-50 years ago. I am guessing whatever ammo is available won't include the most modern AP types.

 

I find the idea that anyone might be expecting Ukrainian crews to get a five week course on such an obsolete tank then drive towards the front lines shocking.

 

I just hope that if they do head East they're strictly limited to rear area policing. The only reason I could see for combat use is if the Ukrainians had a warehouse full of SP gun turrets with the same size turret ring. But I see no evidence of that.

[KeithMacdonald]

15 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

The Germans went for high speed, big gun, low armour...

 

Reminds me of a soft top BMW 330. Loads of oomph, great fun to drive at speed, last thing I'd want to have a crash in.

 

[peanuts]

May interest some on here 

[KeithMacdonald]

Just in passing, I'm wondering why we only ever exported Challenger 2s to Oman.

 

Anyone know?

[Barry O]

For various reasons but mainly down to German, French and American governments helping to sell vehicles.  Greece were about to buy cr2E.. then bought Leo 2.. result.. no Elgin Marbles for them!

 

Baz

[exet1095]

55 minutes ago, peanuts said:

May interest some on here 

That’s well and truly VOR! Even though I came too on my Ferret crew driver course, it looks beyond my skills to get it going…

[jjb1970]

On the Leopard 1, I say an interesting take on it today, suggesting that they may be suitable to use as infantry support guns, basically a mobile gun with some crew protection. In that application their inadequacies might be manageable and crew training demands lower. The Russians have been using old T-62 tanks for the same purpose quite successfully it appears.

 

That might work, providing that the Ukrainians are disciplined enough not to fall into the trap of using them as actual tanks.

[Ben B]

The cynic in me thinks all this tank talk is just that, talk... Western powers playing for time, in the expectation of a poor-outcome (Ukraine falls or capitulates), or a good-outcome (Putin dies of a stroke or is ousted by the good'ol Russian tradition of a Palace Coup). So they promise support, knowing the shite will likely hit the fan first, or maybe Putin will solve the problem by copping it.

 

There's probably a fair few politicians and Generals quietly worrying that if they do send decent armour, and loads of Russian tanks start getting holed by legions of hastily-repainted Abrams and Challengers that the mad Russian bastard will have all the excuse he needs for escalation; then it's a hop, skip, and a jump to trading battlefield atomics over the Polish border, and we have to plan for a Mad Max inpired 2024...

 

Of course, as I say, that's me being cynical. I'm not a soldier, my background being study of politics and History, the Russian Revolution and rise of Stalin, and playing 'Red Alert' on the computer, so hopefully someone with a better knowledge of tanks can reassure me that I'm talking out my backside ;)

 

 

[PaulRhB]

44 minutes ago, Ben B said:

 

Of course, as I say, that's me being cynical. I'm not a soldier, my background being study of politics and History, the Russian Revolution and rise of Stalin, and playing 'Red Alert' on the computer, so hopefully someone with a better knowledge of tanks can reassure me that I'm talking out my backside ;)

The ‘Chieftain’ is an ex US tank commander who has a fairly well respected channel and has done chats with Bovington and Aus Armour which gives him more credibility. This is what he has to say in an interview on the Challengers offered.

 

 

[KeithMacdonald]

13 hours ago, Ben B said:

There's probably a fair few politicians and Generals quietly worrying that if they do send decent armour, and loads of Russian tanks start getting holed by legions of hastily-repainted Abrams and Challengers that the mad Russian bastard will have all the excuse he needs for escalation

 

I do agree. From talking to friends who served in Tidworth, Shrivenham, etc, there's also probably a fair few politicians and Generals quietly worrying that if they do send decent armour, and loads of Abrams, Challengers and Leopard tanks start getting holed by Russian missiles, etc,  then some US neo-cons will have all the excuse they need for yet more escalation, like more "advisers", private contractors and NATO equipment inside Ukraine.

 

Maybe that's why we have the apparently strange news that those 30 or so Abrams can't come from any existing stocks, they have - for some strange reason - to be brand new tanks. So the "commitment" is to placing an order with the factory to build some brand new tanks, now due for delivery in "about 12 months".

 

Lots of PR and NATO virtue signalling, but a careful lethergy as well.

[KeithMacdonald]

If you go down to the woods today, you're sure of a big surprise.

 

Quote

Preparing for Putin... in the woods of Wiltshire: Ukrainian soldiers undergo battle training on Salisbury Plain. Troops have been training with the UK’s military in Wiltshire before they are sent to the frontline against invading Russian forces.

Actually that's not the surprising part, this is:
 

Quote

They are being helped by Australian armed forces, who are providing the training alongside British soldiers. Praising Australia as a ‘close and valued defence partner’, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said: ‘Australian armed forces are providing vital training for the brave Ukrainian men and women here in the UK, learning the skills they will need to return and defend their country.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11703541/In-woods-Wiltshire-Ukrainian-soldiers-undergo-battle-training-Salisbury-Plain.html

Well. I knew there's a New Zealand in Wiltshire. Having Australia too is a surprise.
 

Quote

He added: ‘We are also progressing our collaboration over the Aukus programme, promoting security and prosperity across the Indo-Pacific.’

Err, what's this Aukus programme then?
 

Quote

A landmark defence and security partnership has been agreed by the leaders of the UK, the United States and Australia today which will protect and defend our shared interests in the Indo-Pacific.

The sun never sets on the Aukus Empire
 

Quote

Under the ‘AUKUS’ alliance, we will enhance the development of joint capabilities and technology sharing, ensuring our people are kept safe from harm and reinforcing our shared goals. AUKUS will foster deeper integration of security and defence-related science, technology, industrial bases and supply chains.

Err, how's that going to work? By making Australia part of NATO?
 

Quote

The first initiative under AUKUS will be a collaboration on future nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy. This capability will promote stability in the Indo-Pacific and will be deployed in support of our shared values and interests.The UK has built and operated world-class nuclear-powered submarines for over 60 years. We will therefore bring deep expertise and experience to the project through, for example, the work carried out by Rolls Royce near Derby and BAE Systems in Barrow.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-us-and-australia-launch-new-security-partnership

Suddenly sitting up and taking notice. I really don't know why nuclear-powered Australians are roaming round Wiltshire woods and upgrading Ukrainians.

Any ideas?

I know Australia is in the Eurovision Song Contest, but NATO too?

[jjb1970]

On Challenger 2, I think most people agree that tank for tank it is probably better than anything deployed by Russia in Ukraine. The issue is what difference anyone expects 14 tanks to make in a war which is being fought on a huge scale (thousands of armoured vehicles) and whether establishing the logistic chain and expertise necessary to support just 14 tanks makes any sense.

 

I think the British calculation was largely political, to apply pressure on Germany, but it is notable that a few countries who were demanding that Germany allow them to re-export Leopard 2's to Ukraine have been back tracking and now Germany will send a handful of Leopard 2 tanks and up to 88 Leopard 1's which may be useful as infantry support guns but death traps if used as MBTs.

[jjb1970]

16 hours ago, Ben B said:

The cynic in me thinks all this tank talk is just that, talk... Western powers playing for time, in the expectation of a poor-outcome (Ukraine falls or capitulates), or a good-outcome (Putin dies of a stroke or is ousted by the good'ol Russian tradition of a Palace Coup). So they promise support, knowing the shite will likely hit the fan first, or maybe Putin will solve the problem by copping it.

 

I get the impression that Putin is one of the more moderate Russian senior leaders and much more of a pragmatist than the likely alternatives. I also think that the Russian people are largely supportive of the intervention in Ukraine. So if Putin was to drop dead I wouldn't assume that would a positive development.

 

Western media have pretty much presented the war as Mad Vlad waking up one morning and deciding to re-establish the USSR and conquer Europe. There has been very little attempt to try and analyse why Russia has acted as it has. I don't support Russia invading Ukraine but the reason NATO, Ukraine and Russia are in this mess is much more complicated than the media has presented.

[Barry O]

3 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

If you go down to the woods today, you're sure of a big surprise.

 

Actually that's not the surprising part, this is:
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11703541/In-woods-Wiltshire-Ukrainian-soldiers-undergo-battle-training-Salisbury-Plain.html

Well. I knew there's a New Zealand in Wiltshire. Having Australia too is a surprise.
 

Err, what's this Aukus programme then?
 

The sun never sets on the Aukus Empire
 

Err, how's that going to work? By making Australia part of NATO?
 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-us-and-australia-launch-new-security-partnership

Suddenly sitting up and taking notice. I really don't know why nuclear-powered Australians are roaming round Wiltshire woods and upgrading Ukrainians.

Any ideas?

I know Australia is in the Eurovision Song Contest, but NATO too?

So Australian troops can make sure the Ukrainian Artillery guys know how to get the most out of the M777 howitzer they have been gifted.  (M777 designed and built in Barrow but never bought by the British Army who soldier on with the Light 105 gun)

 

Aukus  is about cooperation but also involves looking at how the Australians can replace their diesel Collins class submarines with a nuclear hunter killer.

 

Baz

[jjb1970]

The British army artillery capability is in a crisis. 

 

We're giving away our operational AS90 guns, as well as some of the light guns and MLRSS. If the army went to war tomorrow it'd have to fight without effective artillery, which is a shocking indictment.

 

I know there's an argument that the army is happy as it forces the governments hand on replacing AS90 and upgrading LRSS but that assumes that the current mess actually will force the government will accelerate procurement of new artillery and doesn't alter the fact that army now faces a significant capability gap for several years. The alternatives like Archer and K-9 are not off the shelf items you can buy and have delivered next day (especially when just about every other army is waking up to the fact their artillery capabilities are inadequate and are looking to buy additional or replacement systems).

[jjb1970]

It'll be interesting to see which way the army goes for new artillery as there now seems to be a fundamental split in philosophy between truck mounted guns and more traditional tracked self propelled guns.

 

A truck mounted system is probably cheaper and faster, but I would expect a tracked system like K9 to have better ultimate mobility.

[Reorte]

6 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

Western media have pretty much presented the war as Mad Vlad waking up one morning and deciding to re-establish the USSR and conquer Europe. There has been very little attempt to try and analyse why Russia has acted as it has. I don't support Russia invading Ukraine but the reason NATO, Ukraine and Russia are in this mess is much more complicated than the media has presented.

Not really. It still boils down to that. Oh, you can dig in to his anti-NATO paranoia and so on if you want, but it's essentially nothing more than imperialistic ambitions by a sociopath who doesn't understand the rest of the world, but thinks he does. All that stuff about buffers between Russia and the West, influence, loss of influence and so on, you need to understand that to understand Putin's motivations but you also need to understand it for the drivel that it is. People all too often confuse explanation with justification.