Jump to content

Is it time to update the armor model on the leo2A4?


ole1291
 Share

Go to solution Solved by Damian90,

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, ole1291 said:

Any link to his work? what's his family name?

Paul Lakowski. going over his numbers i have found a few mistakes in his estimates. 

as an example, he assumed triple hardness steel for the outer welded structural walls of the turret, when in fact this material can only be used in a sandwich or as addon armour. 

he also assumed too much thickness for the outer wall, even though it was not possible to properly roll-harden steel thicker than ~45mm.

However, many of these estimates are based off numbers mentioned during the CFE talks in the 1990s. 

In other words, they are official numbers given to the russians as an olive branch, and should be fairly accurate, at least for the abrams tanks(up to M1A1HA)

so even though his assumptions for materials is off, the result is close to the real numbers. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ole1291 said:

That's the question...

The debate was initially about whether the Leo2A4 and M1A1 that are likely to be sent to the war in Ukraine could resist BM42 rounds on the front. What do you think?

 

President Biden was rather open about that, no M1's for Ukraine.

 

1 hour ago, ole1291 said:

M1IP upgrade dates to early 80s so still presumably aimed at improving initial M1 poor (relative to CE) KE protection, threat round at the time likely still BM22. 

M1A1 HA upgrade (with DU inserts) from late 80s logically defeats BM42, were all M1A1 HA upgraded to HA standard?

 

M1 KE protection was ok when it was fielded. M1IP and M1A1 protection levels for both turret and hull front were improved, by how much? I don't know, but in my opinion it was around ~500-600mm vs KE +/- so just like in SBProPe.

 

Majority of M1A1's were upgraded with Heavy Armor Package (HAP), either being upgraded to M1A1HA standard, or M1A1AIMv1 or M1A1AIMv2/M1A1SA. However in 2010 or 2011, Heavy Armor Package was replaced by Next Generation Armor Package (NGAP), we can recognize it by letter after serial number on turret side. Heavy Armor Package is marked with letter U, Next Generation Armor Package is marked with letter M.

So from 2010/2011 onwards M1A1SA's and M1A2SEPv2's received 1st generation NGAP, while from 2018 onwards, M1A2SEPv3's have 2nd generation NGAP. All M1 tanks going through major overhauls receive new armor package.

 

This is something to be confirmed this year when Polish Army will receive it's M1A1FEP's, however we know that after overhaul process, these will not be M1A1FEP's but, something we can call M1A1PL, and these might receive new armor package as well as other modifications to meet Polish Army requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ole1291 said:

The debate was initially about whether the Leo2A4 and M1A1 that are likely to be sent to the war in Ukraine could resist BM42 rounds on the front. What do you think?

 

No M1's (regardless of variant) for Ukraine.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ole1291 said:

 

That's the question...

The debate was initially about whether the Leo2A4 and M1A1 that are likely to be sent to the war in Ukraine could resist BM42 rounds on the front. What do you think?

 

 

in theory this may be true, but also in my view over-analyzing things a bit; over-emphasis of numbers comparison like this misses the larger picture:

 

the amount of vehicles the west seems to be suggesting (notwithstanding m1 abrams tanks) appears to be too small to really matter; they may be a bit of a morale boost, or perhaps it is the means the west is tip-toeing here and slowing insinuate deeper involvement into the war without provoking russia too much. as it is however, how much can anyone expect 10 challenger 2 tanks to affect the war in the larger sense- this is simply a token offering.

 

the amount of training required for proficient crews on western afvs mean they will not be seen in combat anytime soon, or if they are thrown in on an expedited basis the crews probably will have little chance to make the most of them.

 

then there is the problem of logistics in order to supply ukraine with NATO or american or british requirements to use these vehicles, or the maintenance requirements to keep them running (this is far more important than the most one sided western press seems to acknowledge). and for all the problems the russians and ukrainians have with the t-72 or t-80 based vehicles, they are proven reliable- they can still run in crappy conditions or can make use of the local infrastructure- roads and bridges which may not be as suitable for heavier western vehicles, which may experience more difficulty especially in the wet, muddy conditions in ukraine when the ground isn't frozen

 

ukraine does not have control of the air space to protect these vehicles from russian air attacks, drones, and so on. american and british success in iraq wasn't just because of their vehicles in themselves, but because of the whole suite of superiority in combined arms, air and artillery support, C3, logistics and materiel support- which ukraine does not have. a successful tank does not simply occur in a vacuum, the way it works as part of an overall machine, which when that is effective, the tanks are also effective, and vice-versa.

 

in sum, theoretically you can show that a particular APFDS round will have difficulty against a target armor and that you may have the one or two real life engagements which may seem to corroborate that, but in the larger picture, i think this doesn't draw any conclusions about whether these tanks will succeed and affect the war. i also am very suspicious in the way western reporting of what is going on - all but de-emphasizing ukrainian losses or otherwise omitting them entirely, which is affecting perceptions of what is going on. you are not as likely going to see what happens if these tanks were to fail

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said:

theoretically you can show that a particular APFDS round will have difficulty against a target armor and that you may have the one or two real life engagements which may seem to corroborate that, but in the larger picture, i think this doesn't draw any conclusions about whether these tanks will succeed and affect the war.

That's exactly my view on this as well.

Direct ammo-on-armor comparisons will usually lead you into a deep rabbit hole of conflicting information (that's the whole point of it being classified - the public space is seeded with enough "plausible but wrong" numbers that it keeps everybody busy second- and third-guessing estimates, and if you happened to actually stumble upon the real numbers you still wouldn't know if you could trust them).

That's not to say that we're giving up on trying to improve our own estimations, but let's not forget that the primary purpose of SB Pro is crew procedure and tactical training for AFV crews and battalion (+/-) scale wargaming. Steel Beasts is not intended as a tool for quantitative statistical analysis and the prediction of battle outcomes. Steel Beasts may not be entirely useless in that role, but it's not intended for it.

 

Here's my view on the operational picture.

So far, tank losses in Ukraine as a result of direct tank cannon duels at range seem to be absolutely negligible. We've seen ambush situations where, at really close range, tank-on-tank flanking shots were applied. These would be guaranteed to kill any tank. Tanks seem to get killed mostly by artillery fire, occasionally by loitering munitions, anti-tank mines, RPGs and anti-tank missiles. Where tank-on-tank duels happened, HE-frag rounds seem to have been the preferred munition, not APFSDS.

We haven't seen massed armor attacks across open plains, and it appears unlikely that we will see them in this conflict. Early on both parties had enough tanks for that but operational planning and terrain conditions prevented that. Ukraine's tank doctrine seems to relegate the tank as a primary means of infantry fire support. They seem to be lobbing a lot of HE-frag shells at long range. (Meanwhile, the Russians seem to have adopted a similar mode of tank usage.)

In spring '22 Ukraine received a deluge of anti-tank weapons for infantry, and as the war dragged on, both sides lost so many tanks to other causes that I don't think any party will risk massing a larger number for fear of losing them quickly.

 

Anything less than an armored brigade's worth of (western) tanks is unlikely to have a measurable effect on the course of this war, anything even remotely in the order of magnitude of the "HIMARS effect". That one did change a lot, but they won't squeeze a lot more juice from that unless ATACMS is being delivered; an escalatory move that I'm not seeing happening yet.

Even if Europe and NATO were willing to deliver a full armored brigade's worth of MBTs, the question still is where to find them. There's Leopard 1s, but they're good only while confronted with T-62s (which have been mobilized in numbers by Russia (in case anyone here didn't follow the news)). As far as Leopard 2A4s are concerned - or any Leopard 2 model for that matter - I just don't see any user state having enough of them around to be able to afford a donation of that scale without simultaneously denuding their own national defense - and that's just not going to happen, period. We may be seeing a battalion's worth of chocolate box tanks ("you never know what you'll find") donated from half a dozen European nations, primarily as a symbolic gesture to boost morale (both domestic, and in Ukraine). Such a motley force probably creates more of a logistical and training burden than it will actually do good on the ground - from a strictly military perspective that would be bordering on sabotage, if you asked me. Yet, it may be done for political necessity.

No: The only nations that could provide a significant number of the same tanks are Poland's Leopard 2A5s, if immediately reinforced by deploying a US armored brigade to the country, or the US delivering M1 Abrams directly to Ukraine, which appears even less likely at the moment. A significant number of Leopard 1s could be mobilized if Turkey, Greece, Chile, or Brazil were willing to donate a larger number (and then there's another 100 that Rheinmetall (and possibly other German defense contractors such as FFG) have allegedly bought back from European governments over the past 20 years). Britain pushed 250 of its 450 Challenger 2s into the smelter, and sold all its Challenger 1s to Jordania where they might be gathering dust and lots of UV rays in the desert).

There simply isn't much that could be donated.

As usual, much of what circulates through the press is completely unrealistic, unadulterated BS. Any journo could be checking the SIPRI database, but their job apparently is to simply amplify whatever feelings and opinions some politician airs rather than to check if any of that is actually possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ssnake said:

So far, tank losses in Ukraine as a result of direct tank cannon duels at range seem to be absolutely negligible. We've seen ambush situations where, at really close range, tank-on-tank flanking shots were applied. These would be guaranteed to kill any tank. Tanks seem to get killed mostly by artillery fire, occasionally by loitering munitions, anti-tank mines, RPGs and anti-tank missiles. Where tank-on-tank duels happened, HE-frag rounds seem to have been the preferred munition, not APFSDS..

I think arty as a main tank killer is a biased feeling; granted there is a gazillion videos of drone directed arty taking out stuff.

 

But recording a tank on tank engagement via drone is almost impossible but the few very short range ambushes.

If long range engagement are recorded, what we will see is either the tank firing at something or the receiving end taking hit. 

Even if the crew had a camera on board (usually a gopro), we wouldn't see much besides the tank firing or taking hit due to wide field of view of the camera, making the target way to small to see on video.

That is, if the crew puts the video online while on the frontline.

 

Add to this the ease of uploading drone videos on the internet (since drone operators are not usually direclty on the frontline).

 

Same is actually true of javelin missile, there is like what, a couple of videos of javelin taking out tanks? Does that mean there is no use of them or that no drone or no one recorded those hits?

 

My point is, i don't think tank on tank engagement is that rare but there is almost no way of recording them properly.

 

That said, you are very likely right; i still do have the [i]feeling[/i] arty is the main killer there..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Where are the photos of killed tanks that have the very characteristic impact hole of a sabot round?

I'm seeing a lot of tanks with extensive deformations in the impact area. Occasionally I'm seeing HEAT fragment patterns. Very rarely any tank with a star-shaped impact hole. There's whole sites like Oryx dedicated to documenting tank losses. They can't catch every tank, but we have no reason to believe that they are deliberately omitting tank wreck photos that were killed by a specific weapon or ammunition type. So I believe that what we're seeing is a sample that represents the total population of tank wrecks well. Go through them. Go only through the ones that are burned out. Of these, count only those where you can actually see the impact location, then sort by HEAT, HE, and sabot holes, and do the count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Captain_Colossus said:

 

?

I am just pointing out the possible observation biais towards arty efficiency or tank on tank rarity when only looking at videos posted; that does not mean that arty as tank killer statement is not true; but may be overrated.

 

As Ssnake suggested, trying to identify/count on oryx of what killed each tank is likely the best current solution. Let me try to do that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it difficult to even put together a somewhat realistic scenario.

Your typical SB scenario has more armor losses than either combatant loses in a whole day, along the whole front it seems, if the numbers are correct.

The usual , 1 company of Mech inf in APC's attacking with 1 platoon of tanks seems way too armor heavy based on the losses I've seen reported.

Seems like an assaulting Battalion should have about 3 tanks and a small handful of carriers in this war.

But I'm certainly not in the know.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The whole premise of Steel Beasts is that you have a larger formation of (highly aggressive) armored vehicles in direct combat. This clearly does not apply in this war.

Both sides keep their tanks at extreme distances and use them more like artillery pieces than directly fighting each other. Much of the reconnaissance and the artillery battle is largely conducted by drone. Much of the action on the ground is conducted by heavily entrenched infantry. As a result we observe a shift towards a much slower pace, and much fewer tank kills per day.

What you can see in Steel Beasts is that if infantry is placed in trenches and you throw badly aimed artillery at them, the loss rates are going down drastically. What Steel Beasts currently can't simulate is the use of tanks as artillery pieces, AI use of drones for artillery targeting, or the effects of a highly centralized command structure that may not sufficiently encourage truthful (if disappointing) reporting at all levels of the command chain.

 

Also, in Steel Beasts you tend to have a much, much higher troop concentration than what's realistically the case at the moment. We now have approximately 1.4 million soldiers mobilized on both sides combined. These get distributed over a front line of at least 800km length, and realistically no more than 60% of all forces are actually in contact, probably only 40% (Ukraine can't afford leaving the northern and northeastern borders to Belarus and Russia uncovered, nor the coast around Odessa, or the border to Moldova). So, maybe 600,000 troops over a line of 800km length = 750 soldiers in total per kilometer frontage, but only 10% of all soldiers in an army are actual combat troops; the rest are supply, air defense, medics, command staff, military police, maintenance, ... that's about 75 per kilometer, for both sides, so about one infantry platoon per kilometer for each party (!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, That gives somewhere to start Even that 1 platoon might not be mounted. And a tank if you're lucky.

I've always found realistic frontages/ km to be difficult.

 

 

Might be an idea to add more lightly armed/ less trained rear area troops in my scenarios in future.

 

 

Edited by Parachuteprone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, BlackDeath said:

I am just pointing out the possible observation biais towards arty efficiency or tank on tank rarity when only looking at videos posted; that does not mean that arty as tank killer statement is not true; but may be overrated.

 

 

 

 

this would be true if an observer is selective in their reporting, that is, a tendency to see one situation over the other. i do not think this is the case. there is evidence of tank vs tank combat, there just isn't a lot of it (relatively few videos when compared against artillery, infantry ambushes, or older photographs from earlier in the war seem to suggest columns and vehicle concentrations hit by artillery and drones). i don't see any reason that sources would elect to suppress one type of engagement over another - and i think subjectively audiences would probably be very interested to see tank vs tank combat, it gives audiences a thrill. i do not think what you are seeing is a case of bias, but in general what is actually the case- based on the evidence that is available, you are not seeing many tank vs tank engagements in this phase of the war because there aren't as many. for a comparison, there are similarities between this war and the iran-iraq persian gulf war of the 1980s, some observers noted the world-war one like attrition warfare.

 

and while it may be interesting to think about the change in conditions if the west supplied ukraine with combat vehicles- let's say for the sake of argument a dozen challenger 2 tanks- i have to assume at least some of those will be cannibalized for parts to keep some of the others maintained and running (again, reminds of the equipment iran or iraq would need to maintain without a supply of parts from the source)

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 8:24 PM, dejawolf said:

However, many of these estimates are based off numbers mentioned during the CFE talks in the 1990s. 

In other words, they are official numbers given to the russians as an olive branch, and should be fairly accurate, at least for the abrams tanks(up to M1A1HA)

so even though his assumptions for materials is off, the result is close to the real numbers. 

So, the Germans and Americans gave up their own best assessment of their armor arrays effectiveness to the Russians during these talks (and I imagine the reverse too), and that data was later leaked. 

Would you say those are the most reliable metrics to assess current leo2A4 and M1A1 HA armor then, more so than the British assessment posted previously, as it would be more up to date?

Or could it be a case, as SSnake outlined, of deliberately seeding slightly false information to further blurr the picture, impossible to know I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 9:06 PM, Damian90 said:

 

President Biden was rather open about that, no M1's for Ukraine.

For the time being...

It's obviously contingent on how the war proceeds and other factors.

But as Snake already outlined, there aren't many Leo2 that could realistically be donated.

M1s on the other hand are plentiful.

Bradleys are already going to be sent there. 

 

 

On 1/14/2023 at 9:06 PM, Damian90 said:

M1 KE protection was ok when it was fielded. M1IP and M1A1 protection levels for both turret and hull front were improved, by how much? I don't know, but in my opinion it was around ~500-600mm vs KE +/- so just like in SBProPe.

 

Majority of M1A1's were upgraded with Heavy Armor Package (HAP), either being upgraded to M1A1HA standard, or M1A1AIMv1 or M1A1AIMv2/M1A1SA. However in 2010 or 2011, Heavy Armor Package was replaced by Next Generation Armor Package (NGAP), we can recognize it by letter after serial number on turret side. Heavy Armor Package is marked with letter U, Next Generation Armor Package is marked with letter M.

So from 2010/2011 onwards M1A1SA's and M1A2SEPv2's received 1st generation NGAP, while from 2018 onwards, M1A2SEPv3's have 2nd generation NGAP. All M1 tanks going through major overhauls receive new armor package.

 

This is something to be confirmed this year when Polish Army will receive it's M1A1FEP's, however we know that after overhaul process, these will not be M1A1FEP's but, something we can call M1A1PL, and these might receive new armor package as well as other modifications to meet Polish Army requirements.

Did most of those placed in long term storage receive an upgrade as well prior to retirement?

So Poland will basically receive M1s with latest (or close) protection level but without the hunter killer capability, data link moving map etc... of the M1A2. I imagine no APS as well (any plans for the future?). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2023 at 5:00 AM, Captain_Colossus said:

 

in theory this may be true, but also in my view over-analyzing things a bit; over-emphasis of numbers comparison like this misses the larger picture:

 

the amount of vehicles the west seems to be suggesting (notwithstanding m1 abrams tanks) appears to be too small to really matter; they may be a bit of a morale boost, or perhaps it is the means the west is tip-toeing here and slowing insinuate deeper involvement into the war without provoking russia too much. as it is however, how much can anyone expect 10 challenger 2 tanks to affect the war in the larger sense- this is simply a token offering.

 

Absolutely, the importance of the move is in breaking the threshold.

 

 

On 1/15/2023 at 5:00 AM, Captain_Colossus said:

 

the amount of training required for proficient crews on western afvs mean they will not be seen in combat anytime soon, or if they are thrown in on an expedited basis the crews probably will have little chance to make the most of them.

 

then there is the problem of logistics in order to supply ukraine with NATO or american or british requirements to use these vehicles, or the maintenance requirements to keep them running (this is far more important than the most one sided western press seems to acknowledge). and for all the problems the russians and ukrainians have with the t-72 or t-80 based vehicles, they are proven reliable- they can still run in crappy conditions or can make use of the local infrastructure- roads and bridges which may not be as suitable for heavier western vehicles, which may experience more difficulty especially in the wet, muddy conditions in ukraine when the ground isn't frozen

 

All of that would also apply to other western systems the Ukrainians have received like PzH2000, and the very same arguments were made at the time. I'm sure they're not making the most out of those systems (just look at the videos) and are abusing them a lot, but from their point of view it's still better than no system at all.

 

 

On 1/15/2023 at 5:00 AM, Captain_Colossus said:

 

ukraine does not have control of the air space to protect these vehicles from russian air attacks, drones, and so on. american and british success in iraq wasn't just because of their vehicles in themselves, but because of the whole suite of superiority in combined arms, air and artillery support, C3, logistics and materiel support- which ukraine does not have. a successful tank does not simply occur in a vacuum, the way it works as part of an overall machine, which when that is effective, the tanks are also effective, and vice-versa.

 

in sum, theoretically you can show that a particular APFDS round will have difficulty against a target armor and that you may have the one or two real life engagements which may seem to corroborate that, but in the larger picture, i think this doesn't draw any conclusions about whether these tanks will succeed and affect the war. i also am very suspicious in the way western reporting of what is going on - all but de-emphasizing ukrainian losses or otherwise omitting them entirely, which is affecting perceptions of what is going on. you are not as likely going to see what happens if these tanks were to fail

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2023 at 7:32 AM, Ssnake said:

That's exactly my view on this as well.

Direct ammo-on-armor comparisons will usually lead you into a deep rabbit hole of conflicting information (that's the whole point of it being classified - the public space is seeded with enough "plausible but wrong" numbers that it keeps everybody busy second- and third-guessing estimates, and if you happened to actually stumble upon the real numbers you still wouldn't know if you could trust them).

That's not to say that we're giving up on trying to improve our own estimations, but let's not forget that the primary purpose of SB Pro is crew procedure and tactical training for AFV crews and battalion (+/-) scale wargaming. Steel Beasts is not intended as a tool for quantitative statistical analysis and the prediction of battle outcomes. Steel Beasts may not be entirely useless in that role, but it's not intended for it.

 

Here's my view on the operational picture.

So far, tank losses in Ukraine as a result of direct tank cannon duels at range seem to be absolutely negligible. We've seen ambush situations where, at really close range, tank-on-tank flanking shots were applied. These would be guaranteed to kill any tank. Tanks seem to get killed mostly by artillery fire, occasionally by loitering munitions, anti-tank mines, RPGs and anti-tank missiles. Where tank-on-tank duels happened, HE-frag rounds seem to have been the preferred munition, not APFSDS.

We haven't seen massed armor attacks across open plains, and it appears unlikely that we will see them in this conflict. Early on both parties had enough tanks for that but operational planning and terrain conditions prevented that. Ukraine's tank doctrine seems to relegate the tank as a primary means of infantry fire support. They seem to be lobbing a lot of HE-frag shells at long range. (Meanwhile, the Russians seem to have adopted a similar mode of tank usage.)

In spring '22 Ukraine received a deluge of anti-tank weapons for infantry, and as the war dragged on, both sides lost so many tanks to other causes that I don't think any party will risk massing a larger number for fear of losing them quickly.

 

After this war is over, it will certainly be interesting to see a proper statistical analysis done of all the various losses as was done after WW2 and the Arab-Israeli wars. 

I largely agree with all you said, but I wouldn't want to be so certain about the linear progression of the conflict, there's still some intangibles that could affect the balance enough to allow 'some' maneuver warfare to take place, not that it would result in Kursk like battles but still.

Keep in mind that in 2014, over the same terrain, and with essentially the same kit, there was plenty of movement, encirclements and such.

Drones do complicate everything, but to what extent?

 

 

On 1/15/2023 at 7:32 AM, Ssnake said:

 

Anything less than an armored brigade's worth of (western) tanks is unlikely to have a measurable effect on the course of this war, anything even remotely in the order of magnitude of the "HIMARS effect". That one did change a lot, but they won't squeeze a lot more juice from that unless ATACMS is being delivered; an escalatory move that I'm not seeing happening yet.

Even if Europe and NATO were willing to deliver a full armored brigade's worth of MBTs, the question still is where to find them. There's Leopard 1s, but they're good only while confronted with T-62s (which have been mobilized in numbers by Russia (in case anyone here didn't follow the news)).

 

Here I don't agree (leo1), you just made a point that most tank work in this war was infantry support, leo1 would be ok in that role.

And with their thermals and good FCS, they wouldn't be useless vs other tanks. Especially at night or in those ambush scenarios that are are most common.

In an offensive role, of course things would get dicey.

 

On 1/15/2023 at 7:32 AM, Ssnake said:

 

 

 

As far as Leopard 2A4s are concerned - or any Leopard 2 model for that matter - I just don't see any user state having enough of them around to be able to afford a donation of that scale without simultaneously denuding their own national defense - and that's just not going to happen, period. We may be seeing a battalion's worth of chocolate box tanks ("you never know what you'll find") donated from half a dozen European nations, primarily as a symbolic gesture to boost morale (both domestic, and in Ukraine). Such a motley force probably creates more of a logistical and training burden than it will actually do good on the ground - from a strictly military perspective that would be bordering on sabotage, if you asked me. Yet, it may be done for political necessity.

No: The only nations that could provide a significant number of the same tanks are Poland's Leopard 2A5s, if immediately reinforced by deploying a US armored brigade to the country, or the US delivering M1 Abrams directly to Ukraine, which appears even less likely at the moment. A significant number of Leopard 1s could be mobilized if Turkey, Greece, Chile, or Brazil were willing to donate a larger number (and then there's another 100 that Rheinmetall (and possibly other German defense contractors such as FFG) have allegedly bought back from European governments over the past 20 years). Britain pushed 250 of its 450 Challenger 2s into the smelter, and sold all its Challenger 1s to Jordania where they might be gathering dust and lots of UV rays in the desert).

There simply isn't much that could be donated.

As usual, much of what circulates through the press is completely unrealistic, unadulterated BS. Any journo could be checking the SIPRI database, but their job apparently is to simply amplify whatever feelings and opinions some politician airs rather than to check if any of that is actually possible.

 

I also don't understand why the Ukrainians seem so fixated on the leo2s? 

Anyway, you are right, only large numbers would have a decisive impact.

The main reasoning put forth by the Ukrainians and media pundit is that they are running out of 125mm ammo, they said that a couple of month ago and still appear to be fine so might be BS.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I also don't understand why the Ukrainians seem so fixated on the leo2s? 

 

One possible reason.

 

Putin has stated they (Russia) wanted to de-militrize Ukraine, so maybe its the EU who is getting de-mililerized. Most if not all the EU's T-72's,BMP1/2 Arty vehs are now scrap on the battlefield thus the requirment for NATO AFV's.

 

Leo 2 and Challengers might be on the same list. They have reduced the M-777,humers,mraps, Javlins,Nlaws,UK Mraps, PZ2000 just to name a few, and they are not done yet, Bradlys are now up next, as well as M109's.

 

BO once stated" Russia has "esclation dominance", this has not changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 12Alfa said:

 

I also don't understand why the Ukrainians seem so fixated on the leo2s? 

 

One possible reason.

 

Putin has stated they (Russia) wanted to de-militrize Ukraine, so maybe its the EU who is getting de-mililerized. Most if not all the EU's T-72's,BMP1/2 Arty vehs are now scrap on the battlefield thus the requirment for NATO AFV's.

 

Leo 2 and Challengers might be on the same list. They have reduced the M-777,humers,mraps, Javlins,Nlaws,UK Mraps, PZ2000 just to name a few, and they are not done yet, Bradlys are now up next, as well as M109's.

 

BO once stated" Russia has "esclation dominance", this has not changed.

The days one could wonder if some people brains are still working get more and more when one reads posts by them...

Edited by Grenny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have listened to several interviews with commonwealth and american citizens who have returned from fighting in ukraine, and the picture they give is much different than narratives in the press (or for that matter the typical internet discussion board); they have all stated that ukrainian commanders would regard the foreign fighters the most expendable, or that they were sent into the most dangerous situations in order to preserve ukranian nationals as much as possible if foreign units were available. they also point out the utter lack of experience the ukranian fighters had and were getting torn up; they were all being shuttled around to different hot spots (there are also stories many of them have tuberculosis and sent in regardless, infecting others), often getting vaporized on the way to battles rather than in the battles directly; all seem to agree that artillery and mortars are accounting for the most casualties are the most dangerous threats.

 

american policy makers have stated that the primary reason that M1 tanks are off the table because of the difficulty of maintaining them in local conditions, i.e., this would suggest repairs and replacement of tracks and powerpacks after running through their expected lifecycles before refit. are there other reasons couched in this explanation- possibly, but i do think that is a major factor if not the only one. i do not think the us is terribly interested in broken down or abandoned M1 tanks captured by the russians, which is what is being hinted or implied in these statements

 

 

Edited by Captain_Colossus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Grenny said:

The days one could wonder if some people brains are still working get more and more when one reads psots by them...

Wounder what happened to your def minister, and that gas pipeline (X2)your tax dollars paid for, yes alot of people are woundering these days it seems.

I(psots)...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Captain_Colossus said:

i have listened to several interviews with commonwealth and american citizens who have returned from fighting in ukraine, and the picture they give is much different than narratives in the press (or for that matter the typical internet discussion board); they have all stated that ukrainian commanders would regard the foreign fighters the most expendable, or that they were sent into the most dangerous situations in order to preserve ukranian nationals as much as possible if foreign units were available. they also point out the utter lack of experience the ukranian fighters had and were getting torn up; they were all being shuttled around to different hot spots (there are also stories many of them have tuberculosis and sent in regardless, infecting others), often getting vaporized on the way to battles rather than in the battles directly; all seem to agree that artillery and mortars are accounting for the most casualties are the most dangerous threats.

 

american policy makers have stated that the primary reason that M1 tanks are off the table because of the difficulty of maintaining them in local conditions, i.e., this would suggest repairs and replacement of tracks and powerpacks after running through their expected lifecycles before refit. are there other reasons couched in this explanation- possibly, but i do think that is a major factor if not the only one. i do not think the us is terribly interested in broken down or abandoned M1 tanks captured by the russians, which is what is being hinted or implied in these statements

 

 

captured by the russians

or sold on the black market, like other wpn systems showing uo in the mid east. Fuel would be a problem, I seem to recall a issue with energy in the EU, can't place my finger on why :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 12Alfa said:

Wounder what happened to your def minister, and that gas pipeline (X2)your tax dollars paid for, yes alot of people are woundering these days it seems.

I(psots)...?

 Are unable to read very simple forum rules? Or do you think you're so special that you need not adhere to them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Grenny said:

 Are unable to read very simple forum rules? Or do you think you're so special that you need not adhere to them?

Being hatefull gets one no where in life, we were having a conversation here, then this....why?

 

Now this will be locked, or maybe this is the reason for your post (we are onto you)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Ssnake locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...