"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again."

[buffnut453]

The tactical implementation (including range) of an A-10 from the air is totally different then that of a Gepard on the ground. Therefore the amount of ammo spend by an A-10 to conceive actual hits is already 30-50times higher then that of a Gepard.
If you have been to NATO training grounds then you would be able to see what 4-6, 35mm tungsten API will do to a T-62, between 1000-1500m, not even to mention 20-40 hits. (total overkill). The unit I served in was heavily integrated with Gepard's so we got to see quite a lot of action by this "beast".

And a T-62 is not a T-72. They're very different beasts. Even within the T-72 series, the export versions were considerably less well protected than those retained by Mother Russia. The earliest Russian T-72s had composite ceramic laminated armour for the turret (the export variants didn't have composite armour) and starting in 1985 they added 20mm of applique armour to the front of the hull. If you then start bolting on ERA, things get even trickier for the Gepard.

I don't deny that the Gepard was a great piece of kit but in a knife-fight with MBTs, it's not going to come off well. The Gepard's gun turret can't protect against much above heavy machine guns. Any success against an MBT that's part of a combine arms attack will involve a heck of a lot of luck, IMHO.

 

[buffnut453]

HEY...LOOK FELLAS!!! WE REACHED 250 PAGES ON THIS THREAD WITHOUT IT BEING SHUT DOWN!!!!!

YAYYY US!!!! WAY TO GO, TEAM!!!!


Donning coat now and furtling off into a quiet corner somewhere to lie down and compose myself.

 

[Jagdflieger]

And a T-62 is not a T-72. They're very different beasts. Even within the T-72 series, the export versions were considerably less well protected than those retained by Mother Russia. The earliest Russian T-72s had composite ceramic laminated armour for the turret and starting in 1985 they added 20mm of applique armour to the front of the hull. If you then start bolting on ERA, things get even trickier for the Gepard.

I don't deny that the Gepard was a great piece of kit but in a knife-fight with MBTs, it's not going to come off well. The Gepard's gun turret can't protect against much above heavy machine guns. Any success against an MBT that's part of a combine arms attack will involve a heck of a lot of luck, IMHO.

I had mentioned T-54, T-62 right up to a T-72. looking at the Russian tank wrecks in Ukraine, I haven't seen a blown up T-72 with reactive armor (doesn't mean there wouldn't be any)
but mostly T-62's. I think that the US forces aren't familiar with 35mm tungsten ammo. So indeed difficult to imagine unless you have seen it.
And I haven't forwarded or indicated that a Gepard is suitable for a head on (knife-knife) fight with a T-72 MBT - but being integrated into a defensive/obstructing position it is able
to even knock out a T-72. Since a Gepard in a defensive position would be surrounded by infantry, AFV's, ATGM teams and MBT's it would be a hell of a slaughter for those Russians to come at such a position.
The Gepard has one huge disadvantage though, due to its huge overweight (it's chassis, tracks and engine deriving from a Leopard I) we usually needed four 8x8 trucks to get them towed out of a muddied field.

 

[Jagdflieger]

...... No doubt it will be good to defend against Frogfoot/helo attacks.

I don't want to dishearten the Ukrainians, but this is exactly as to were I place my personal question mark.
Sure against some unsuspecting Frogfoot or Transport/Liaison helicopter/aircraft it would have an impact, but in regards to today's range of Air-Ground missiles I don't really
see a meaning in a Gepard with it's (antiquated) firing range. Off course other more advanced AA missile systems can link onto it's radar - but for that I wouldn't need a tank.

That is why I had brought in the idea of it being a far more effective ground defense weapon then in its original intended 1980's AA role. In which it was already supposed to
be replaced by the far more capable Ozelot system in the early 90's - but due to budget constrains only realized from 2005 onward.

So maybe in a static position around strategic targets, armed with ahead ammo - it might proof useful against e.g. cruise missiles.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

An A-10's 30-mike is coming in against top armor, whereas the flakpanzer's 35mm is coming in horizontally.

No, the A10 has to contend with front, side, or rear armor. Survivability dictates flying nap of the earth. To access top armor requires a pop up and roll in diving maneuver which exposes you to every MANPAD in a 5 mile radius. Not conducive to health and long life. At those speeds pointing your nose at mother earth without plenty of altitude is tantamount to suicide. Target fixation/CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain) kills as many pilots as ground fire does.

 

[J_P_C]

Rheinmetall informed that they have stored only 23k rounds of 35mm ammunition. Single load of Gepard is 680 rounds... it is not even funny.... Rusted 40 years old Striela missiles and flak tanks without ammunition - could be better for Grmany just say "no"?

 

[Admiral Beez]

If you're using it against MBTs you're probably losing the battle already.

True, but imagine the Gepard tearing up a squad of BMPs, BTRs and MTLs.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Rheinmetall informed that they have stored only 23k rounds of 35mm ammunition. Single load of Gepard is 680 rounds... it is not even funny.... Rusted 40 years old Striela missiles and flak tanks without ammunition - could be better for Grmany just say "no"?

Damn. Well, after the thirty odd single loads of 35mm ammo runs out the Gepards can make good artillery tractors and ARVs.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't want to dishearten the Ukrainians, but this is exactly as to were I place my personal question mark.
Sure against some unsuspecting Frogfoot or Transport/Liaison helicopter/aircraft it would have an impact, but in regards to today's range of Air-Ground missiles I don't really
see a meaning in a Gepard with it's (antiquated) firing range. Off course other more advanced AA missile systems can link onto it's radar - but for that I wouldn't need a tank.

That is why I had brought in the idea of it being a far more effective ground defense weapon then in its original intended 1980's AA role. In which it was already supposed to
be replaced by the far more capable Ozelot system in the early 90's - but due to budget constrains only realized from 2005 onward.

So maybe in a static position around strategic targets, armed with ahead ammo - it might proof useful against e.g. cruise missiles.

You're ignoring an important point, to wit, the Russians have already shot off most of their smart weapons and missiles, and are now mainly throwing around dumb bombs and rockets

Russia is increasingly relying on unguided bombs and brute force in its assault on Ukraine as it seeks to regain momentum and runs out of more precise weaponry, according to western defence officials. Moscow's dependence on heavy artillery barrages of urban centres and its use of so-called dumb bombs indicated a shift in military tactics following its failure to capture big cities or make major advances on other fronts, they said. The move will exact an even greater toll on Ukrainian civilians.

Military briefing: Russia turns to brute force in struggle to subdue Ukraine

Moscow shifts to artillery barrages and ‘dumb’ bombs after failing to make expected advances

www.ft.com

Much better than putting these up against T-72s. Let's hope Rheinmetall gets cracking on making more 35-mm ammo.

 

[Admiral Beez]

My favourite West Germany AFV is the Kanonenjagdpanzer with its 90 mm gun. A true successor to the Jagdpanzer IV and Jagdpanther of WW2. The ATGM armed Raketenjagdpanzer was also top of mind.



I don't suppose the Kanonenjagdpanzer's 90 mm gun and 1980s era ammo would kill the modernized T-72s in Ukraine, but anything lighter will be fare game. Too bad the Germans scrapped them…. For a formerly militaristic people the Germans are really unprepared for today's world.

 

[Jagdflieger]

Rheinmetall informed that they have stored only 23k rounds of 35mm ammunition. Single load of Gepard is 680 rounds... it is not even funny.... Rusted 40 years old Striela missiles and flak tanks without ammunition - could be better for Grmany just say "no"?

You have to ask the Ukrainians. In beginning of March they had asked to be supplied with Leopard I tanks!!! Somehow they seem to be a lot like the Russians - fancy anything that is heavy and looks like a tank. IMO the Wiesel/Ozelot family and it's weaponry would be perfect for the Ukrainian Army.
And selling/providing e.g. Wiesel/Ozelot vehicles to the Ukraine is far more easy (actually no problem at all) to pass through parliament, then a Leopard IIA7 or the Panzerhaubitze 2000.

However due to NATO (besides maybe the USA) being run down financially there are more or less no chances for any immediate delivery of a present weapon systems employed by NATO without endangering NATO's present fighting capabilities.

Why the USA is not supplying them with e.g. 300 M1A2's and 500 Bradley's from stock based stateside (surely Mexico and Canada are not posing a momentary threat towards them) I wouldn't know.

 

[Jagdflieger]

My favourite West Germany AFV is the Kanonenjagdpanzer with its 90 mm gun. A true successor to the Jagdpanther. The ATGM armed Raketenjagdpanzer was also top of mind.



I don't suppose the Kanonenjagdpanzer's 90 mm gun and 1980s era ammo would kill T-72s, but anything lighter will be fare game. Too bad the Germans scrapped them…. For a formerly militaristic people the Germans are really unprepared for today's world.

Not the 90mm cannon, but the Jagdpanzer Jaguar 2 with it's TOW-2 missile system would be enough to tear up a T-62 right up to a T-72. However I still believe that the Wiesel/Ozelot family is far more suitable for the urban warfare that the Ukrainian army is conducting.

Germany and it's NATO associates are certainly well equipped to ward of a Russian attack onto NATO - however (except the USA) none of them has the $ or equipment lying around
to be send/supplied to the Ukraine, without endangering NATO's commitment.

 

[vikingBerserker]

We need those to keep the the residents of Florida and California confined to their states.

It seems like we are offering those to NATO allies first to replace their Russian made equipment to pass those onto the Ukrainians. Theoretically a win win, allies are upgraded with Western equipment and Ukrainians get equipment they are familiar with.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Not the 90mm cannon, but the Jagdpanzer Jaguar 2 with it's TOW-2 missile system would be enough to tear up a T-62 right up to a T-72.

I wonder how many T-72s Russia has lost to direct gunfire, rather than to missiles, fuel starvation, breakdowns, abandonment and farmers. There was that vid of an Ukrainian MBT shooting up a Russian tank column, but I didn't see any MBT kills. Are Russian tanks mostly protected against similarly-armed Ukrainian tanks? I wonder how often two countries go to war with essentially identical tanks - maybe China vs. India, or Indian vs. Pakistan in the 70s, or Iraq vs. Kuwait and the coalition in 1991?



Apparently the Ukrainians do have some antitank guns.

Ukraine Rolls Out Soviet-Era Radar-Equipped Anti-Tank Guns

Cold War-era MT-12R anti-tank guns could help bolster Ukraine's anti-armor capabilities in any conflict in the near future.

www.thedrive.com

In the USA, the Ukrainian MT-12R cannon with radar was evaluated

The Drive evaluated the Soviet MT-12R cannon used by Ukraine with radar <br>Although most countries of the world refuse to use towed anti-tank guns in favor of guided missiles, the Soviet MT-12R 100-millimeter anti-tank gun used by Ukraine, equipped with the 1A31 radar sighting system, can be...

vpk.name

 

[Jagdflieger]

I wonder how many T-72s Russia has lost to direct gunfire, rather than to missiles, fuel starvation, breakdowns, abandonment and farmers. There was that vid of an Ukrainian MBT shooting up a Russian tank column, but I didn't see any MBT kills. Are Russian tanks mostly protected against similarly-armed Ukrainian tanks? I wonder how often two countries go to war with essentially identical tanks - maybe China vs. India in the 70s?



Apparently the Ukrainians do have some antitank guns.

Ukraine Rolls Out Soviet-Era Radar-Equipped Anti-Tank Guns

Cold War-era MT-12R anti-tank guns could help bolster Ukraine's anti-armor capabilities in any conflict in the near future.

www.thedrive.com

In the USA, the Ukrainian MT-12R cannon with radar was evaluated

The Drive evaluated the Soviet MT-12R cannon used by Ukraine with radar <br>Although most countries of the world refuse to use towed anti-tank guns in favor of guided missiles, the Soviet MT-12R 100-millimeter anti-tank gun used by Ukraine, equipped with the 1A31 radar sighting system, can be...

vpk.name

I can only guess, but due to Ukraine's armed forces conducting urban warfare - I wouldn't be surprised if the Russians already lost a 1000 T- members.

 

[ThomasP]

re "Why the USA is not supplying them with e.g. 300 M1A2's and 500 Bradley's from stock based stateside . . ."

TIming and logistics. The US and other nations are (for the most part) trying to supply the UAF with equipment that can be used ~immediately. M1s would take a minimum of ~6 weeks to get on the ground and operational in the Ukraine, assuming no problems. If you want effective operational M1 units ~6 weeks from now, the training would have to begin immediately (like tomorrow), the platforms would have to be drawn from active units, the minimal most basic maintenance & logistics capability would have to be established. The M1 is a complicated platform, not intended for one shot use.

Also, as far as I am aware, the UAF still has a large number of their own tanks available. And I do not think that there will be any massed tank vs tank, or any massed tank vs anything battles in the near future.

 

[Jagdflieger]

re "Why the USA is not supplying them with e.g. 300 M1A2's and 500 Bradley's from stock based stateside . . ."

TIming and logistics. The US and other nations are (for the most part) trying to supply the UAF with equipment that can be used ~immediately. M1s would take a minimum of ~6 weeks to get on the ground and operational in the Ukraine, assuming no problems. If you want effective operational M1 units ~6 weeks from now, the training would have to begin immediately (like tomorrow), the platforms would have to be drawn from active units, the (very basic) maintenance & logistics capability would have to be established. The M1 is a complicated platform, not intended for one shot use.

Also, as far as I am aware, the UAF still has a large number of their own tanks available. And I do not think that there will be any massed tank vs tank, or any massed tank vs anything battles in the near future.

Initially NATO was convinced that the Russians would roll over the Ukraine within a week.
The way I see it, this Ukraine issue is not going to end before end of the year - so these US "ready" for supply weaponry should already be on it's way to the Ukraine since beginning of
April and training conducted in parallel within NATO countries. I don't agree that it takes an experienced tanker crew several month to become familiar with e.g. an M1A2 or a Bradley.

If necessary combat readiness can be managed within 2 weeks. - maintenance and repair knowledge is another issue that might take 2-3 month to achieve a certain standard.

We were send for the Pershing I/II operating course to the USA for 3 month (actually a kind of reward for signing up) factually the operators course could have been done in 2 weeks.

Since the Ukrainians are fully aware of the sh...y Russian equipment they naturally do not want to engage the Russians with the same equipment.

 

[ThomasP]

re ". . . I don't agree that it takes an experienced tanker crew several month to become familiar with e.g. an M1A2 . . ."

What are the UAF going to do? Pull their experienced tank crews from the front lines and send them to the US or other countries for training? 300 (or any large number) of M1s going operational is not going to happen anytime soon. And there really is no reason to send just a few, unless they get sent to a non-operations area to begin the training process.

re "Since the Ukrainians are aware of the sh...y Russian equipment they naturally do not want to engage the Russians with the same equipment."

?

 

[Jagdflieger]

Rheinmetall informed that they have stored only 23k rounds of 35mm ammunition. Single load of Gepard is 680 rounds... it is not even funny.... Rusted 40 years old Striela missiles and flak tanks without ammunition - could be better for Grmany just say "no"?

The German government is right now negotiating with Brazil in order to get aprox. 300,000 rounds of ammo for the Gepard. Also Switzerland and Germany are able to produce this ammo more or less immediately - if government funds are coming in.
(statistically this should be enough for the Ukrainians to wipe out the entire Russian army)

 

[ThomasP]

ZURICH, April 26 (Reuters) - Neutral Switzerland has vetoed the re-export of Swiss-made ammunition used in Gepard anti-aircraft tanks that Germany is sending to Ukraine, the government said on Tuesday.

SECO received two requests from Germany to transfer to Ukraine ammunition it had previously received from Switzerland. One concerned 35mm ammunition for the Gepard tank. The other concerned 12.7mm ammunition, the agency said in response to a query.

SRF said it was unclear which ammunition Germany was now sending to Ukraine along with the Gepards, following the Swiss veto.

"Swiss veto German request to re-export tank ammunition to Ukraine"