"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (375 Viewers)

[swampyankee]

The M1's AGT1500 (1500 HP) multi-fuel turbine accounts for about 40% of the platform's current operational maintenance. Although the original intent was to have a 2000 hr MTBO (the requirement was 2000 hr MTBO) the goal was never met (I think). Currently the MTBO is ~700 hrs. This is partly because of aging engines and associated systems, and partly because the M1 has been so heavily used - much more so than envisioned in the original requirements.

The Leopard II's MT883 (1500 HP) multi-fuel diesel met the originally requirement for 2000 hr MTBO, and has maintained that requirement in operations.

There is however, more routine maintenance required on the MT883. I have not been able to find out the difference in times required by levels of maintenance for the 2 engines, but it is probably more for the diesel.

Incidentally, the 'EuroPowerPack' (a variant of the MT883 diesel and Renk transmission) was fitted to a M1A2 in the late-1990s and completed trials satisfactorily. Fuel usage during the trials was ~50% compared to the turbine powered control model.

For comparison, the MTBO of the AVDS-1790 variant offered for the M1 was, iirc, under 100 hours. There was quite a lot of trouble getting the AGT-1500 as installed in the M1 to become fully serviceable, mostly as Chrysler (which was the original manufacturer and designer of the M1 tank) couldn't design a decent air cleaner.

 

[ThomasP]

re 'For comparison, the MTBO of the AVDS-1790 variant offered for the M1 was, iirc, under 100 hours.'

"Switching production -- How long might that take?"

Unfortunately the AVDS-1790 variant for the M1 was never fully developed, so it ever had an established MTBO. The later variants in the series were comparable to other engines of similar power, and there was eventually a 1500 HP model developed (but I have not seen any expected MTBOs for it).

 

[Jabberwocky]

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.

Ukrainians claim the Russians have lost 969 tanks as of 27 April.

Open source verified Russian MBT losses are 564 (per Oryx blog). That includes 300 destroyed, 215 captured and a further 49 abandoned. Predominant losses are T-72Bs.

UK MoD statement from 25 April was that Russia has lost "at least" 530 MBTs and 1600 other armoured vehicles.

The truth is probably somewhere between the Ukranian and the open source verifications - call it 750 MBTs.

EDIT: The Oryx figures reportedly don't include Russian tanks damaged and then recovered. There are at least 80 parked at a couple of sites in Russia. I suspect that while some of these will be returned to combat, quite a few will never leave these sites.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ukrainians claim the Russians have lost 969 tanks as of 27 April.

Open source verified Russian MBT losses are 564 (per Oryx blog). That includes 300 destroyed, 215 captured and a further 49 abandoned. Predominant losses are T-72Bs.

UK MoD statement from 25 April was that Russia has lost "at least" 530 MBTs and 1600 other armoured vehicles.

The truth is probably somewhere between the Ukranian and the open source verifications - call it 750 MBTs.

EDIT: The Oryx figures reportedly don't include Russian tanks damaged and then recovered. There are at least 80 parked at a couple of sites in Russia. I suspect that while some of these will be returned to combat, quite a few will never leave these sites.

I bet the money to repair them is pretty scarce, unless the Chinese do some Lend-Lease of their own.

 

[pgeno71]

I bet the money to repair them is pretty scarce, unless the Chinese do some Lend-Lease of their own.

I hope your right, but I don't know. The EU has probably purchased close to 40 billion Euros worth of gas and oil from Russia since the invasion began. And, if they continue the contracts to the end of the year, which as far as I know is still the plan, that's seven more months of purchases at tens of billions of Euros a month. I'm not sure how much this bolsters Putin's war machine, but I think about a trillion Euros is a lot of money.

Also, I am generally skeptical of sanctions. Countries always seem to find work arounds and in Russia's case there are many countries that would help just to thumb their noses at the West.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Also, I am generally skeptical of sanctions. Countries always seem to find work arounds and in Russia's case there are many countries that would help just to thumb their noses at the West.

Even working around sanctions generally involves more expense. It looks to me like Israel, with its recent investment in the yuan, may be angling to be a breathing-tube for the Russian economy.

I think the Russian military is banged-up enough that if those trillion Euros (if that's the actual number) will soak up a bit of it, and then the expense to mollify a Russian public that is seeing hardship may also account for much too.

It's a pity that so much of Europe relies upon Russian energy. Here's hoping that this experience with war teaches them that relying on Russian goodwill is probably not wise money, and here's hoping as well that we Americans and others can step up to replace the Russian business that will be lost.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

They require different maintenance. IIIRC, from when I worked at AVCO-Stratford, the MTOH for the AGT-1500 was about twenty times that of the diesel alternative

The M1's AGT1500 (1500 HP) multi-fuel turbine accounts for about 40% of the platform's current operational maintenance. Although the original intent was to have a 2000 hr MTBO (the requirement was 2000 hr MTBO) the goal was never met (I think). Currently the MTBO is ~700 hrs.

My experience with turbines (mostly RR Darts and PWC PT6s) is that they have impressive TBOs, but if they're in daily use they're constantly in the shop for (minor) jobs such as Hot Section Inspections, turbine wheel changes, fuel nozzle flow checks, bleed valve changes, accessory timeout replacements, etc. Our PT6s started with 5300 hour TBOs with extensions based on a condition monitoring system, some reaching 10-12K hours of hard usage with very few of the original parts remaining when we traded them in for remans.
I shudder to think of doing that in the field under combat conditions. A diesel that has a slightly shorter TBO, but not so much intermediate tweaking, and better fuel efficiency to boot, looks like a no-brainer to me.

 

[Jabberwocky]

To put Russia's tank losses into perspective (assuming ~750 kills):

Russia's active tank fleet prior to the Ukraine war was estimated at between 2700 and 3300 tanks, comprised of about 60% T-72B/BMV/BVMs, 25% T-80U/BV/BVMs and 15% T-90A/T-90Ms. So, somewhere between 23% and 25% of Russia's pre-war active fleet has been destroyed.

There were another 4500-5500 'modern' tanks (built since about 1985) in storage - predominantly T-72B and T-80B/U. Of these, 1500-2000 have been produced in the last 20 years and have been upgraded to be 'service ready'. This means they should be able to be pulled out of storage, have their wear/time limited parts replaced/replenished, have ERA and other sensitive items installed, get stocked up on fuel and ammo, get tested and then be good to go.

Theoretically. If they've been stored correctly. And the proper maintenance practices and intervals have been observed. And they haven't had some bits stripped or stolen. And if they're actually there in the first place.

Assume though that Russia's total deployable tank strength against Ukraine is somewhere in the region of 4200-5500 tanks. In that case, Russia has only lost about 14% to 18% of its available tank force.

The remaining 2000-3500 'modern' tanks in storage have been there since the 1990s would need more serious maintenance. This could be something as simple as replacing perished/degraded seals and various fluid lines to much more complex jobs, like performing major overhauls or getting new circuit boards printed to make targeting system firmware compatible with new ammunition. Also, a lot of these stored tanks have been turned into donor vehicles - one article I read suggested that pre-war, as few as one in 10 were actually capable of being put into battle without being returned to the factory for work.

Then there were a further 4000+ 'older' tanks in storage - mostly early T-72 models. These are unmodernised and mostly date from the late 1970s and early 1980s. Most of these would require major work to have them brought up to a compatibility standard with the rest of Russia's tank force. As in thousands of man hours of work per tank. Now, the longer the war drags on, the more time Russia will have to put those older, deep storage vehicles into service. But, that's going to be a slow, time consuming and expensive process, and it assumes that A) Russia can be bothered to put them into service, and B) Russia has the capability to put them into service.


To put this another way: Russia's sole tank plant at UralVagonZavod is capable of producing around 250 new tanks per year. Again, theoretically. Between 2007 and 2016, it actually produced roughly 75 to 150 new tanks per year. So, in terms of new tanks lost, Ukraine has already cost Russia somewhere between three and six years worth of new production.

UralVagonZavod also upgrades a lot of T-72s and T-80s to more modern standards. Capability to do this is around 300 tanks per year. But actual production was more like 220-230. So, in terms of re-manufactured tanks, Russia has lost at least two to three years worth of production.

 

[WARSPITER]

A very informative post. This brings up a few other Elephants hiding in the corner of the room.

Other equipment is the first. Armoured vehicles and soft skin transport being one. What is the repair / replacement capacity ?

Air assets is the second. What maintenance and parts levels have been kept up ? Are they at a high state of repair and readiness
or are they below par ? Previous posts from knowledgable members have shown the lack of use of air power. Is it actually there ?

The next is ammunition. What are the stocks and what is the current manufacturing capability for a sustained war ?

The last is what is actually being held available to counter other threats ? Is there enough to cover other borders (Poland etc) let
alone carry out offensive operations should they be called for (hopefully not) ?

Lots of questions and so far it seems the answers may not be what higher ups in Russia would want to hear.

 

[ThomasP]

If the Russians are actually paranoid about NATO attacking them when their attention is on the Ukraine, then there is no way that they will deploy more than a limited amount of their air power into the Ukraine. It is just too much of their defensive/offensive ability to risk not having it available and deployable where needed in case of a major NATO attack.

As I mentioned up-thread, in a head-to-head air war, NATO and the US would shred the Russian air forces. The Russian higher-ups should know this. Pretty much every nation that uses the current Western air platforms and/or uses the current Russian platforms knows this, and are often quite open about it on their website discussions. I am not saying that the US and NATO would not take serious losses, but there really is no question as to the general outcome.

 

[RogerdeLluria]

The scalation in Transnistria/Moldovia may unfold in unexpected ways.

 

[J_P_C]

If the Russians are actually paranoid about NATO attacking them when their attention is on the Ukraine, then there is no way that they will deploy more than a limited amount of their air power into the Ukraine. It is just too much of their defensive/offensive ability to risk not having it available and deployable where needed in case of a major NATO attack.

As I mentioned up-thread, in a head-to-head air war, NATO and the US would shred the Russian air forces. The Russian higher-ups should know this. Pretty much every nation that uses the current Western air platforms and/or uses the current Russian platforms knows this, and are often quite open about it on their website discussions. I am not saying that the US and NATO would not take serious losses, but there really is no question as to the general outcome.

couple months ago one of the polish defence specialists published good assasement of the VKS condition. Just to bring only summary of this, by his opinion, condition of the military aviation of russia is close to catastrophical (publication has been made could be two months before war). He pointed to the situation that majority of russian air force equipment already reached or will reach soon limits of equipment life. Observing news stories everything seems to confirm his opinions - for me significant indication is lack of reports of Su-24 actions (officially its number should be bigger than Su-34), no reports about significant activity of MIG29 from russian side and so on...Another significant item is close to none usage of the guided air to ground ammunition by russians - probably stockpiled quantities were enough just for presentation during MAKS airshow.

 

[at6]

Harvey Wallbanger's more my style: sweet tasting and lethal, with a hangover to reinforce your guilt complex.

What? Your family is like mine was?

 

[at6]

"Hell no! You're the guy that offended him! Take your punishment and turn the other cheek!"

You sure as hell aren't me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Strike me and die !!!!!!!!!

 

[Jagdflieger]

I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was disagreeing with you; I wasn't. I don't see us disagreeing as much as (it seems to me) we each have our own particular concerns and perspectives.

We both don't have a problem to discuss different point of views - but we need to be careful that our (partially opposing) arguments do not end up with us placing wrong
words into each others mouth. - I think that's all

 

[Jagdflieger]

Blowing up stuff in other countries is an "illegal action?"

I believe this to be a rather serious issue. Since Russia has been trying (actually did) to justify juridically their political and military actions towards the Ukraine, they are just a interested
in doing the same in regards to possible actions towards those supporting the Ukraine with weapons.
It seems obvious to the Russians that these (blowing up stuff) actions are not simply conducted by just Ukrainian forces.

 

[Jagdflieger]

If you're operating your mobile air defence guns within sight of the enemy's MBTs you're doing it wrong. I believe the Gepard will be used close behind the front lines in concealed positions to destroy Russian helicopters and strike aircraft. Any MBT close enough to see the Gepard had better already be dead or fighting for its life against NLAW/Javelin equipped Ukrainian infantry. On the Gepard, can it reliably down cruise missiles and land attack missiles?

I don't agree with that assumption, because that is exactly as for what the Gepard was build for - to accompany infantry and armored vehicles into battle (not 20 miles behind).
That in today's modern arsenal, almost 40 years after it's introduction e.g. composite and reactive armor - the threat posed by a today's MBT is entirely different.

But we are talking about the Ukraine war - conducted on the Russian side by mostly Ukrainian/Russian irregulars and their shitty equipment - e.g. T-62's and T-72's and a huge number
of AFV's. The Ukrainians are forcibly conducting a urban warfare concentrated defense. And a T-62 or T-72 and even better Russian MBT's are basically impractical in such a warfare (unless one doesn't care about MBT losses).
Therefore the Russian "advance" goes antique - artillery and missile shelling supported by airstrikes and then moving their ground-forces into "suspected" clear territory.
So the front-line is actually the perfect? place for a Gepard to be - embedded in a defensive position and logically surrounded by infantry, ATGM teams, AFV and MBT's.

As I had already mentioned before I never suggested or indicated a head on head (knife to knife) fight between a Gepard and a MBT, but a Gepard being an integral part
in a defensive position and if the air is clear (MBT's) even in an offensive move.

Therefore IMO the latest Israeli Merkava is actually the tank, that would be best suited for the Ukrainians - since their counter-offensive will run into the same urban war style
then conducted by the Russians. However I am not sure about Israels view or policy onto the Ukraine/Russian war.

It's updated radar can track objects up to 20 miles (the old one about 10 miles) with it's gun velocity and using Ahead-ammunition it certainly can take out a non-hyper cruise
missile, anything in regards to a ballistic missile is out of it's capability.

But unfortunately as it seems - the Gepard might not come to the Ukraine since so far no decision has been made to produce the respective ammo by Germany or the Brazil ammo-deal
having been concluded. (If I am not wrong, Brazil abstained at the human-rights UN council issue).

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

True, but on the other hand I kind of admire them for being able to stick towards their laws - unlike presently Germany.

Sticking to a law isn't good by itself if the law isn't good.

Regarding the swiss themselves, sticking to banking secret and giving closed eyes to all the money coming from all kind of despots, satraps and money launderers in a gay people in the military 1990s bill (don't ask, don't tell) maybe be lawful but certainly is not right.

 

[Jagdflieger]

Sticking to a law isn't good by itself if the law isn't good.

Regarding the swiss themselves, sticking to banking secret and giving closed eyes to all the money coming from all kind of despots, satraps and money launderers in a gay people in the military 1990s bill (don't ask, don't tell) maybe be lawful but certainly is not right.

Not disagreeing with maybe non-suitable laws, but the Swiss laws (contrary to almost any other democratic country) are IIRC solely based on the populations decisions.
For any law or change of law a peoples vote/referendum is necessary.

 

[wlewisiii]