[W:#23,579]Ukraine War Thread (5 Viewers)

[Schrott]

That I wasn't aware of, given what RU's been throwing around.

They are smart, too. They can decide if tank X is dead and Tank Y is alive, they can lay mine fields, within 1 meter, can change course in flight and so on.
Its the 155mm which rules the battle field from 40 km away, all the way to 70km.
Russia has no chance to counter them, every shot a hit.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the Abrams out of range of the Iraqi tank fire in Desert Storm, but the Abrams could easily hit the Iraqi tanks? And I assume the Iraqi tanks were Russian models?

Most of the time, yes, but the big tank brawl was at point blank range.

The few Iraqi shells that hit the M1s just messed up the paint job. Normal AP rounds will not penetrate chobham armor, because it doesn't melt worth a damn.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Iraq's M1A1s suffered serious losses against ISIS. And consider who we've been fighting...

Yes, if you're silly enough to let infantry get close, they can throw a molotov into the engine intakes.

Nothing is invincible. You can also destroy an Abrams with aircraft, but we usually have the luxury of total air superiority.

 

[JANFU]

There are a few, and off the top of my head, can due to their experience offer far more insight on the war in Ukraine
I will miss some, so if you wish tag them. Going by a bad memory & all
No doubt they would provide excellent opinions
@armycowboy
@braindrain
@cpwill
@Rexedgar

 

[Schrott]

If we can trust the Iraqi Army with M1A1s, what's the hold up with getting them to Ukraine, I wonder?
If they have been upgraded to the point we are cautious about Russia getting their hands on one, are any of the 3000 in storage of an earlier model that doesn't have this concern?
Or maybe allied nations have a few older ones we could work out a deal on.

The Ukraine does not want them.
Its the fuel issue.
Turbine engines need kerosine like hellis or jets. They want Leos, with a fat old 1500 hp diesel.

Its logistics, besides the quality of the tank. Nothing beats a Leo.

 

[JANFU]

Training and maintenance crews needed. That takes time.

Yes, and he time to start has passed. This is an easy political decision
That said, EU could cough up funding as well as NATO countries

 

[maxparrish]

That would be a complete game changer. The Beast is damn near impossible to kill.

In all the wars we've been in since the Abrams came into use, we have had zero total losses from enemy action.

We've lost 81 of them, but that was mostly from falling through bridges.

So I wonder, given they are heavier than other mbt's how are the bridges in Ukraine?

 

[JANFU]

The Ukraine does not want them.
Its the fuel issue.
Turbine engines need kerosine like hellis or jets. They want Leos, with a fat old 1500 hp diesel.

Its logistics, besides the quality of the tank. Nothing beats a Leo.

Change the engine?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Iraq's M1A1s suffered serious losses against ISIS. ...

Yeah, because they were being crewed by Iraqi soldiers.

A single US BCT at this rate would be enough to collapse the Russian forces in Donbas and Kherson.

 

[JANFU]

Ukraine has many decades ahead of clearing mines/ordnance

 

[JANFU]

Perhaps you should enlist?

 

[Hamish Howl]

Change the engine?

The M1 started with a diesel. It was a pig.

 

[Schrott]

Change the engine?

Not possible. The turbine is a guzzler, uses 2 twice the fuel of a modern 1500 hp diesel. Nobody wants it. The Leo 2 is used in 20 or so countries, the Ab in only 6 or 7.
It is this old subject we have talked about, logistics. 1 fuel for everything.
It was a stupid decision to go with the jet engine, it made the Ab a logistic nightmare

 

[Hamish Howl]

So I wonder, given they are heavier than other mbt's how are the bridges in Ukraine?

At 64 tons per M1, it's a problem. I'd stick with what's working right now, if I were them.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Not possible. The turbine is a guzzler, uses 2 twice the fuel of a modern 1500 hp diesel. Nobody wants it. The Leo 2 is used in 20 or so countries, the Ab in only 6 or 7.
It is this old subject we have talked about, logistics. 1 fuel for everything.
It was a stupid decision to go with the jet engine, it made the Ab a logistic nightmare

This is true. We have the luxury of an excellent logistics tail. Not everyone does.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Also, given the success of the javelin and the NLAW, armor is sort of the pipsqueak again. Will be for a long time.

 

[maxparrish]

When I read 100K PGM 155 shells were on their way, I swear I was over-joyed. It wasn't the
"155" that psyched me up, but that they were PGM 155's!

That's an awful lot of hurt coming RU's way!

Are you sure it was 100,000 PGM rather than 1,000?

 

[Chomsky]

Are you sure it was 100,000 PGM rather than 1,000?

Saw 100K, somewhere.

Can't find it now, beside the 1K sent in July.

Fair enough. I'm going to retract it, unless/until I find the article.

Thanks for the call-out.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Saw 100K, somewhere.

Can't find it now, beside the 1K sent in July.

Fair enough. I'm going to retract it, unless/until I find the article.

Thanks for the call-out.

Geez, you're doing it wrong.

If you're wrong about something, you're supposed to dig in your heels and screech like a baboon.

 

[JANFU]

Are you sure it was 100,000 PGM rather than 1,000?

I posted that number earlier. That said I could be wrong.
It was in the last tranche of US arms to be provided
edit
@Chomsky

 

[Chomsky]

I posted that number earlier. That said I could be wrong.
It was in the last tranche of US arms to be provided
edit
@Chomsky

So you're the guy!

But that being said, @Schrott seemed to confirm they're all (or mostly all) smart rounds:

[W:#23,579]Ukraine War Thread

More lethal kit from Germany How dare those darn Krauts, to deliver lethal weapons to the Ukraine, only God bless America and God save the King are supposed to do that. Not those Krauts, how can we bash them now, they need bashing, aint doing crap for the Ukraine. Next thing those NATO...

debatepolitics.com

And seeing as we sent anywhere from 800K-1M 155 rounds . . .

The US has given Ukraine nearly a million 155 mm artillery shells. Now it's looking for US companies to build more of them.

The US Army recently put out a survey looking US and Canadian companies that can build up to 12,000 M795 155 mm shells a month.

www.businessinsider.in

 

[Chomsky]

Geez, you're doing it wrong.

If you're wrong about something, you're supposed to dig in your heels and screech like a baboon.

Only when debating you Hamish, only when debating you!

 

[beerftw]

Yes it is. This is just you speaking of something you know little about.

Urban combat requires quality infantry to be able to make use of terrain, urban buildup, and infrastructure to create a strong defensive position. A bunch of hapless conscripts are not going to be able to do so effectively. Cities are not magical fortresses that can instantly be turned into a nightmare for an army. Baghdad fell to a basically a single brigade.



In Iraq.

This is where you are wrong, a dedicated force will always perform better, but even the most ill trained and unmotivated can effectively use urban combat, as it always favors the defender, even if the defender also happened to be the invader prior.

Iraq is not what I call major urban combat, that was insurgent fighting, and not on a state level military level, the closest iraq had to real major urban combat was the republican guard in baghdad, and most of those chose to flee while few actually fought it out. in vietnam it was roughly the same but on a much more brutal scale, ww2 was the last war fought where a state govt actively used urban combat on a military scale where the us and most of the western world was involved.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Only when debating you, Hamish!

You know how we do.

 

[ASHES]

This is where you are wrong, a dedicated force will always perform better, but even the most ill trained and unmotivated can effectively use urban combat, as it always favors the defender, even if the defender also happened to be the invader prior.

Iraq is not what I call major urban combat, that was insurgent fighting, and not on a state level military level, the closest iraq had to real major urban combat was the republican guard in baghdad, and most of those chose to flee while few actually fought it out. in vietnam it was roughly the same but on a much more brutal scale, ww2 was the last war fought where a state govt actively used urban combat on a military scale where the us and most of the western world was involved.

Korea? I know there were some of our allies there, but there hasn't been a WW since 2, so most wars since then don't have most of the western world involved.