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

[SaparotRob]

As an aside, I had been wondering how badly hurt were UAF supply chains. I know there were aviation losses from Russia's opening attacks. Did the UAF also suffer losses to their artillery regiments as well? Would their transport assets have been reduced as well? There's a lot of talk about these longer ranged towed howitzers. I was wondering what did the UAF get to tow them with? Then we start posting, among other things, all these M-113s. I thought that long range artillery wasn't towed directly up to enemy small arms range. I thought they'd be brought up to just out of Orc artillery range. Guess I was wrong. I wasn't positing the M-113 as a battle machine with anti aircraft guns/ anti aircraft missiles/ heavy machine guns/ air search radar/ etc bringing troops into battle. I just wondered if the damned things have a trailer hitch.

 

[ThomasP]

re M113

The number of M113 being sent by the US to Ukraine is planned to be ~300. There were a few sent by air for use in training the operator and maintenance cadre personnel.

The FRONT of the M113 was supposed provide "protection" vs 12.7mm and 14.5mm AP - the rest of the vehicle was to provide "protection" vs 7.62mm AP and "commonly encountered" shrapnel.

The standard M113 is cleared to tow upto 14,500 lbs over 'reasonable terrain' (ie terrain where the towed item will not get bogged down) - the M777 155mm gun system weighs in at ~9,300 lbs so there should be no serious problems if they are used for this.

 

[SaparotRob]

So it could carry a ton or two of ammo as well as tow a field piece? And another one could transport its team better (roomier) than a BMP BTR or whatever those things are called? Cool. The old M-113 is still useful. Might even do a better job than a Toyota Hi Lux.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

If nothing else, using them to ferry troops cross-country to endangered spots could prove useful. The fact that they can perhaps tow a gun and its crew with one, and tow an ammo trailer with another, is a plus. I see their value as being their engines and tracks, not their (essentially nonexistent) armor or combat capability.

 

[SaparotRob]

A tracked truck.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

A tracked truck.

Right, as you pointed out upthread.

An M-113 won't strike fear into any heart, but the troops or guns it shuttles ... that could be another story. Working on interior lines, the Ukrainians could put these to good use.

 

[ThomasP]

Addenda to my M113 post above, for all of us OCD types:

The hull of the M113 'Cheesebox' was originally constructed of 5083 aluminum alloy - very similar to 7075 'aircraft aluminum' in terms of protective qualities against ballistic penetration. All of the hull was of 1.5" plate - except the floor which was of 1.25" plate. The front of the hull was sloped at 45° from the vertical so the protection was based on a 2.125" horizontal thickness. The sides were vertical, and the rear had a slight negative vertical slope as a simple way to allow the rear entry ramp to reliably fall open due to gravity (there was not enough slope to have any appreciable effect regarding protection).

The aluminum alloy used on the original M113 was ~40% as effective as quality homogeneous steel armour - by weight - vs typical HMG and LMG AP projectiles of the 1950s-60s era. Because of the typical tumbling of shrapnel, however, the thicker aluminum armour was actually more effective vs the shrapnel than an equivalent weight and geometry of steel homogeneous armour.

 

[Jagdflieger]

Something I saw in an Australian news article which provides a partia, although useful snapshot of the amount of aid being provided:

View attachment 671649

Those figures aren't really helpful - more kind of distorted - economic aid? military aid? a combination of both?
E.g. Germany - the monetary value of just the Gepard and PzH 2000 already add up to around $800+ million.

 

[Jagdflieger]

Right, as you pointed out upthread.

An M-113 won't strike fear into any heart, but the troops or guns it shuttles ... that could be another story. Working on interior lines, the Ukrainians could put these to good use.

To me it is about what Ukraine really needs and is asking for - certainly not M113's
Instead of NATO blowing away $, give them the heavy stuff they are actually asking for, e.g. 300 M113's (2000 standard) cost around the same as 100 today's Bradley's.

 

[Jagdflieger]

Calling an M113 an ARMORED Personnel Carrier is a bit of a stretch. At GE we were sent a couple VADS (Vulcan Air Defense Systems) that had been in Vietnam. The M113 chassis they were installed in had .50 cal and 12.7 MM holes right through the "armor" on one side, through the VADS magazine, and then out the other side. Side to side, and front to back, the rounds just went right through.
Armored? Not so much!

Well an M113 is an APC and is used as such by numerous countries who don't face an artillery and armored opponent such as Russia. It isn't an AFV - but that is just what the UAF would need when conducting counterattacks.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

To me it is about what Ukraine really needs and is asking for - certainly not M113's
Instead of NATO blowing away $, give them the heavy stuff they are actually asking for, e.g. 300 M113's (2000 standard) cost around the same as 100 today's Bradley's.

Yeah, Bradleys would be better in this conflict by a long shot. Is the Bradley in any variant still in production?

Well an M113 is an APC and is used as such by numerous countries who don't face an artillery and armored opponent such as Russia. It isn't an AFV - but that is just what the UAF would need when conducting counterattacks.

It's the mobility it provides that might matter, weak as it is otherwise.

 

[ThomasP]

If your troops are killed by artillery shrapnel/blast effects on the way to the battle they won't have the chance to be killed by shrapnel/blast effects/bullets/bayonets/etc during the battle.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

If your troops are killed by artillery shrapnel/blast effects on the way to the battle they won't have the chance to be killed by shrapnel/blast effects/bullets/bayonets/etc during the battle.

 

[Jagdflieger]

As an aside, I had been wondering how badly hurt were UAF supply chains. I know there were aviation losses from Russia's opening attacks. Did the UAF also suffer losses to their artillery regiments as well? Would their transport assets have been reduced as well? There's a lot of talk about these longer ranged towed howitzers. I was wondering what did the UAF get to tow them with? Then we start posting, among other things, all these M-113s. I thought that long range artillery wasn't towed directly up to enemy small arms range. I thought they'd be brought up to just out of Orc artillery range. Guess I was wrong. I wasn't positing the M-113 as a battle machine with anti aircraft guns/ anti aircraft missiles/ heavy machine guns/ air search radar/ etc bringing troops into battle. I just wondered if the damned things have a trailer hitch.

If I understood you correctly; there are two groups:
one being e.g. the M777 a towed howitzer - far more precise then the present Russian models the UAF has in use and far more versatile ammo available.
To tow these (100? M777) the UAF have certainly enough wheeled trucks to do the job. Fixed artillery are usually placed around 5-10mls behind a front-line. Thus reducing the firing range by that or whatever distance.
The other one are the self propelled Howitzers, e.g. PzH2000, M-109, or the French Caesar - having the important advantage of shot-change position-shot-and so on with immediate firing effect and almost no range reduction (not so much for the Caesar) - to move a M777 to another designated firing (e.g. 2mls off) emplacement, and to get it operational - takes an experienced crew at least 10-15 minutes. In practical usually 20 minutes.
Additionally a PzH2000 and an MLRS system are very capable/effective in counter artillery fire - due to their range they are able to take out the enemies artillery - a hugely important capability which presently the UAF totally lacks.

In that context; German chancellor Scholz today said; The German government will supply Artillery radar detecting vehicles to Ukraine.
Most likely due to the PzH2000 and MLRS it will not be the ABRA system but the Cobra system. (detection range around 100km) and can detect up to 40 artillery emplacements within
2 minutes.
IMO systems such as the MLRS, (MARS II) PzH2000 (hopefully not just 11 pieces) and Cobra would indeed be a game-changer for the UAF - coupled with some 400-500 Bradley's - and Putin's present gains - wooosh...
But so far the aquited numbers aren't very inspiring - The USA is agreeing towards 16 and Germany towards 4 MLRS.

The main reason why the UAF want's Western stuff is also likely due to the issue that they are already running into ammo and maintenance problems for their Russian stuff. Already an issue in regards to the UAF Air-force.

 

[Jagdflieger]

Yeah, Bradleys would be better in this conflict by a long shot. Is the Bradley in any variant still in production?

Not sure - but the jigs are all there to run up a production.

It's the mobility it provides that might matter, weak as it is otherwise.

In that case I would certainly prefer NATO 4x4 up to 8x8 APC/AFV - faster, far more agile, more modern and far more economic.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not sure - but the jigs are all there to run up a production.

In that case I would certainly prefer NATO 4x4 up to 8x8 APC/AFV - faster, far more agile, more modern and far more economic.

Agreed that more modern stuff, still in production as well, would be better,

 

[hawkeye2an]

At Least I'm Enjoyin' the Ride

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeah, Bradleys would be better in this conflict by a long shot. Is the Bradley in any variant still in production?



It's the mobility it provides that might matter, weak as it is otherwise.

The BFV is not that great either. It originally was built with poor aluminum armor. The BFV today has more protection added to it, which has weighted it down an made it very under-powered.

 

[Jagdflieger]

The BFV is not that great either. It originally was built with poor aluminum armor. The BFV today has more protection added to it, which has weighted it down an made it very under-powered.

The Bradley might not be the best compared to e.g. Puma or the CV-90 - but only the US respectively the Bradley is available in numbers.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Looks like Biden has changed his mind and is now sending long range rockets.

U.S. to Send Ukraine $700 Million in Military Aid, Including Advanced Rockets (Published 2022)

A senior administration official said the rocket system was provided only after direct assurances by Ukraine’s leaders that they would not use it against targets in Russian territory.

www.nytimes.com

I find the dithering from the West most frustrating. If you're supporting Ukraine, wanting them to fight the Russians on your behalf, presumably you're wanting them to win. So give them whatever they want short of tactical nukes.