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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Step by step - taking the Ukrainian army's readiness into account - they have enough tankers that don't want to get slaughtered away in a shi..y T-62/T-72 anyway.
 
Jagdflieger said:
I don't agree that it takes an experienced tanker crew several month to become familiar with e.g. an M1A2 or a Bradley.
Click to expand...

wlewisiii has already commented upthread about transitioning to a new AFV, which goes well beyond simply training the crew. He's a retired tanker from the US Army so he's got hands-on experience with this stuff.

It's not as simple as turning the key and going for a joyride. Russian tanks don't have a loader position, so first you're going to have to expand your armored crews by 25%, and train the new personnel for a new position on a new model of gun. Then you're going to have to train the mechanics who keep it running, and then ensure a supply-chain of entirely new and incompatible parts is in place to keep these tanks running. Mr Lewis covered it very well upthread but this thread is going fast enough that his post is buried in the weeds and I don't have the time to find it.
 
Last edited:
Yes I had already mentioned that maintenance and repair can take 2-3 month to gain a certain standard.

As for weapon systems training I can tell you first hand (due to numerous trainings with US forces) that there is a vast difference in training setup and timing between e.g. Bundeswehr, Brits and Canadians compared to the US Army. For what the US forces took 8 hours we did in 1h and for other issues conducted in the US army manner it takes e.g. 2 month whilst in the other forces it takes a week or two.

Since I am convinced that the Ukraine issue is not going to end before years end (if the Russians are not going to bring in considerable elements of their own army), time for the Ukrainians is running out, not just to defend but to counter attack sucessfully, they need these goodies yesterday and not somewhere around August/September.
 
M-1s have turbine engines, let alone another crew position. I imagine the electronics aren't quite the same as well. That alone makes it way different from the Soviet stuff. I'm hoping (daydreaming) that there have already been some Ukrainian personnel sent here prior to the invasion. Wouldn't it be amusing if a few squadrons of Ukrainian F-16s suddenly popped up to contest the airspace over Donetsk in a couple of weeks?
I am amazed at just how fast a polarized U.S. has acted. I am pleasantly surprised.
 
Admiral Beez said:
The bloody Swiss. They sit securely surrounded by NATO but when part of their European house is on fire they withhold the hose.
Click to expand...
BTW, NATO buddy Turkey just entered a second round of talks with Russia for a further tranche of the S-400 system - now that I would consider to be disgraceful in the least.
 
Never mind the word turbine - it's a multi fuel engine just as others use like e.g. the Leo II. Electronics yes sure - but operating them isn't the same as inventing those electronics.

F-16 over Ukraine and Russia - yep would be great sight
 
It ain't the fuel that might be a problem. Turbines are a bit different from diesels and I've read they require more maintenance. You got set up a service network. Logistics!
 
The polarization is entirely media driven. Aside from a few crackpots with megaphones, most people get along just fine.
 
Greg Boeser said:
The polarization is entirely media driven. Aside from a few crackpots with megaphones, most people get along just fine.
Click to expand...

I disagree, Greg. It's driven by a political process in which ardent loyalists select party candidates who then seek to implement the desires of their supporters when in office. Any attempt to work across the aisle is seen as weakness and, come the next election, you can guarantee there will be a competitor who's further to the right or left (depending on the party) of the incumbent, so the ardent loyalists can push to even more extreme representation.

The above problem is exacerbated by the information age which gives everyone a mouthpiece, and in particular it gives politicians a megaphone for their parochial perspectives...and they use them to keep the ardent loyalists on-side. It doesn't help when "fake news" is used as a mantra to disbelieve anything in the media...which pours fuel on the fire noted above.

I'm not saying the media is innocent but it's not all their fault. Some of it is structural and baked into the established processes, and some of it is just a lack of common decency in modern society. As a people, we've forgotten how to disagree without being disagreeable. .

I'll shut up now because I've already jumped too deeply into political issues.
 
Just to further muddy things a little there are older AFV's in storage with various 105mm guns that use the same
ammunition. These are older and simpler (to use?) than the latest types but would definitely be 'competent' on
the battlefield - particularly for ambush and support.

The L7 105 was developed in response to Soviet tanks which were first seen in the fifties. The Centurion at the time
had the 20lber (84mm) which was deemed to be inadequate against the latest Soviet types. The 105 was developed
along the lines of the 20lber and was built with same mounts as the 20lber so the Centurion could be upgraded very
easily.

It is interesting that the M68 came from a US design which was around at the same time as the first L7. The M68 is often said
to be a derivative of the L7 but it isn't. Both followed parallel thinking and the matching gun tube was used to allow both to
have access to ammunition manufactured by either country.

The rifled 105 can fire a round with far more accuracy than a smooth bore 120 and at longer ranges. Penetration for HESH rounds
and the like is far superior using the 120mm but again, ranges are generally lower.

Some lighter vehicles use 105 guns and can fire the same ammo as the L7 / M68.

Fusing can be changed on the 105 steel shells and due to the instant centrifugal force of the rifling the fuse will be bore safe
on all settings - the 120 is limited in this capability.

Penetration power is still good on the 105 when coupled with later fin stabilised ammo. Accuracy at 1200m of three rounds within
a 20cm circle is gained. Even at up to 5000m the three round hit spread is still less than 50cm. A couple of quick shots into the same
area of a target is a handy ability to have.

In other words, even older vehicles, with the right gun / ammo and not just tanks, can cause a lot of grief to Russian armour.
 
My point is that as a versatile support weapon the 105 equipped vehicles would offer mobility with more than just
AT capability. Support fire from a decent sized weapon which can cover terrain well under it's own steam is important
on the battlefield.

There are plenty of worthy targets besides tanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
All V-22's Grounded
Replies
2
Views
854
GTX
M
All This For The Low, Low Price of .....
Replies
19
Views
1K
MIflyer
M
M
The Wrath of KAAN?
Replies
3
Views
515
Snautzer01
M
What Is The Point Of This?
Replies
3
Views
288
SaparotRob
M
USAF Provides More Proof That UFOs are Real!
Replies
0
Views
341
MIflyer
M
Menu
Log in
Register