Splinty
-
Posts
2,952 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by Splinty
-
-
25 minutes ago, Haiduk said:
47th mech.brigade with Slovenian M-55S and Bradley
That's 2 Brads in the picture. It was taken from the back of one.
-
7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
The poster deleted the Tweet, but did link to a different one:
Look at those folds! Cute way to try and make it look like it was an original printed document that was smuggled out by hand. Nice try bub
It is highly likely that there are covert NATO personnel (civilian and military) in Ukraine since probably 2014 at a minimum. They would likely be there to facilitate the gathering and flow of information more than anything, but training trainers is also possible. Though honestly, with all the overt training going on outside of Europe I don't think that would be a big need. Operating as military units against Russian forces? That I very much doubt.
Steve
I wouldn't be surprised if there were some Majors and Colonels hanging around UKR command centers as "observers".
-
7 minutes ago, danfrodo said:
The 154K troops -- is that dead or casualties? I know is dumb question but I am confused because I see such widely varying numbers and most sources don't say what the number means.
According to the matching charts at Ukraine War Room on Reddit, that's Russian dead. The format of the charts there are different, but the numbers are the same across the board.
-
On 2/4/2023 at 10:23 PM, Sequoia said:
This is a bit trivial, but in my time in Germany in the late '70s, I recall US Officers were authorized to wear a green British Army pullover sweater over their OD shirts. Might make a good mix and match mod for US Officers uniforms. It was nice I assume when the weather was cooler, but perhaps not too cool for the field jacket.
I was in the US Army at the early '80's
. The green pullover was authorized for all ranks, but not on field exercises. We did sneak them under our field jackets, because they were nice and warm.
-
45 minutes ago, Huba said:
I seriously doubt either. The whole point of M1 order was to make up for the losses in the fleet that was created by sending all the T-72s. Also M1s arriving in PL might free up the PT91s, that are a much better solution short term. My bet is on either refurbished M1A1SA, or some M1A2 Sep2 that apparently are available in some numbers (Poland leased 30 in a matter of days really).
Id say that the difference in physical resilience to damage is not that big, especially against artillery. The difference might be in mobility (reversing!) and ability to see and fire first due to much superior optics and FCS.
Another of the biggest differences is crew survivability. You are far more likely to get out of a destroyed Abrams or Leopard then out of ANY T series tank.
-
2 hours ago, Vet 0369 said:
Admittedly, I know next to nothing regarding turbine engines in ground vehicles, so I’m a bit confused about this. I’ve had an FAA Airman Certificate for Mechanic, with Airframe and Powerplant Certifications for almost 50 years (46 to be exact), and I believe that turbine engines are much more reliable and easier to maintain than reciprocating engines. A recip can have hundreds of parts that are subject to wear and failure, while a turbine engine has relatively few parts that can wear/fail.
If a recip has issues, one tends to troubleshoot the issue(s) and fix them in place, while with a turbine engine, unless it’s an igniter or the electronic control unit (ECU) or the full-authority, digital electronic control unit (FADEC, an air carrier will simply replace the engine “package.” They don’t send the whole aircraft back to a repair facility. Why is that done with an MBT engine package? A tank engine is similar to a helicopter engine, and in many cases derived from an existing helicopter engine design. Here’s where my armor practices “ignorance” really shines through, why remove an entire MBT, and possibly an experienced crew, from the operational area when all you need are some preconfigured engine packages, a hoisting device, and a support vehicle from the Support Company? Is it because the Army has used manufacturer field reps for so long that it no longer has capable techs to change an engine?
Not trying to be caustic or trolling, but it’s been a looong time since I worked on F4-B/RF4, and F4-J fighters.
For the most part you are right. But to the mechanics who have to pull the engine packs in field conditions close to the front, diesel and turbine are two very different beasts. 2 months after deployment I'm sure the mechanics will be more than proficient, but those two months will have a steep learning curve. The logistical and fuel problems that gas guzzlers like the Abrams require need the same or more time to get their jobs up to snuff. I by no means am saying Ukraine can't handle this, but I DO believe it's going to be a difficult 2 or more months after being deployed in theatre.
-
17 minutes ago, Lethaface said:
The original poster was proposing buying/leasing M1 Abrams to replace the challengers. Assuming that the Challengers have to go either way, i'll consider them 'temporary'. In the case you go for the 'Abrams switch' then, until a decision is made regarding what should replace it in the future, the replacement Abrams are also to be considered temporary.
So UK has to replace their tank arm (including training, logistics, ammo, etc etc) to Abrams and unless they stick with Abrams, another time in the not so distant future.
While Ukraine has to incorporate the Challenger tank AND probably will phase it out as well in the not too distant future.In my ears that sounds like throwing 3 stones to catch 1 bird.
Ukraine is going to need a move to a different tank platform anyway (unless they go for Oplot-M modernization /something of their own instead of western tanks). So might as well have Ukraine make the move to Abrams instead of UK, given that they seem to have a more urgent requirement for m as well.
But indeed it's all speculation anyway. In an utopian world we would develop an EU tank where all participants share in production and training.
The difficulty with Ukraine getting Abrams lies in the engine. Ukraine certainly can relatively easily incorporate armor with diesel engines fairly quickly. Learning to operate and support turbine engines is a whole different animal. Sending an Abrams back to Poland for repairs isn't really feasible for mobile warfare.
-
9 minutes ago, Haiduk said:
M270 launch
This picture is why I don't think integrating maintenance and logistical support for Bradleys will be too big of a problem. That M270 uses the exact same engine, transmission and suspension as the Bradley. Ukraine already has some experience in operating and maintaining at least the chassis and drivetrain.
-
47 minutes ago, danfrodo said:
So Splinty, what do you think of bradleys for UKR? And remember option B is old soviet APCs, M113s, MRAPs or HUMMVs. Is it realistic to supply & maintain these in UKR once crews & infantry are trained to use them?
I think if used properly as part of a combined arms team, the Ukrainians will be very happy with their Bradleys. BUT, IMHO the caveat here is the correct combined arms approach. To be their most effective, Brads need modern MBTs. Abrams being the obvious but at least for now, the least likely one, Leopard 2s or Challengers are more likely in any realistic time frame. The hunter-killer concept of 2 Brads working as eyes/bird dogs while the tank sits and waits for a shot would suit the Ukraine's way of war very well if you ask me.
Of course there are a lot more factors such as ISR and artillery/ air support to be integrated into this as well.
-
1 minute ago, Zeleban said:
Ukrainian infantrymen train with BMP Bradley.
I recognized the guy at the very beginning of the video. This is a famous motoblogger in Ukraine and Russia named Gav
I know that view very well. I spent a lot of time as a Bradley crewman and dismount.
-
Happy New Year to all! Slava Ukraine!
-
37 minutes ago, JonS said:
You mean in the same way that the M1 was shown to be a worthless POS in Iraq? That would certainly explain why the DOD is so reluctant to supply them to Ukraine.
? What made you draw that conclusion?
-
I think that with an accelerated gunnery rotation at Grafenwoher and maneuver training at Hohenfels you could stand up a battalion in six weeks. It would be pretty bare bones, but with US trainers and an obviously determined and already battle experienced Ukrainian student body it would work.
-
25 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
What I'm curious about is how many of the pre-positioned heavy stuff was used up by the reinforcements sent over to bolster NATO? Was their equipment back at home shipped over afterwards, thus replenishing the pre-positioned stuff? The sensible answer is "yes", but the Army doesn't always do sensible
Steve
Facts. But one thing the US military is good at is getting lots of stuff moved long distances very quickly. If they pull the trigger on the Bradley deal, most of the logistical support could be moved in relatively quickly. The various command and maintenance facilities are already there. And there are are US division support facilities forward in Poland as well.
-
11 minutes ago, Huba said:
PL has reasonable Leo2 repair capabilities, and Germany is half a day away from the UA border. On the other hand. there's no established Bradley support infrastructure in the entire Europe AFAIK.
The US still has repair and maintenance facilities with Bradley support capabilities in Bavaria. There is an ABCT still stationed around Kitzegen, Bamburg and Bad Nauheim if memory serves.
-
18 minutes ago, JonS said:
Interesting.
Ukraine has done rather well by specifically not fighting like Americans. Conversely, the ANA did rather poorly in large part because they did try to do that.
The ANA wasn't nearly as motivated, educated, and committed like the UA are.
-
I just watched David Letterman's interview with President Zelensky on Netflix. It's quite good.
-
It was common practice for US troops to ride on top of their M113s during the Viet Nam war to avoid anti tank mine casualties.
-
3 minutes ago, Kinophile said:
They cant be in that dire straits that food rationing is a potential future thing...can they? I mean sure, sanctions are grinding in like dog **** into a white carpet, but Russia can feed itself.
I think?
Well, maybe under normal circumstances. But sending a huge chunk of their labor force to die in Ukraine may have screwed things up a little. That's pure conjecture on my part, but it is a possibility.
-
29 minutes ago, Huba said:
AFAIK Ukrainians report the number of killed, not overall casualties, though it is not very believable. The 100K number seems to come from gen. Milley, who said that "Russians suffered 100K casualties, and Ukrainians probably a similar number", or something like that. We'll know after the war I guess.
I suspect the ratio of wounded to dead is significantly lower in the RA. Their field medical services are crap, and what few medics they have probably treat senior grade officers and ignore the lower ranks. The UA OTOH have Western level medical care and treat all soldiers AND civilians.
-
18 minutes ago, NamEndedAllen said:
Wait! Did your loser voters storm your Capitol, violently trying to overthrow your Parliament in whatever analogous function to ratifying your free and fair leadership election? With several dead, many wounded, and your Parliament building trashed? No? End of THAT debate!
Please not here.
-
31 minutes ago, Seminole said:
The idea that Congress won’t feed the MIC is frankly laughable.
Such funding will have plenty of Democrat votes, so the fringe GOP members are not really an issue for passage, just good for ratings as mentioned.
Unless there are enough "No war at any cost" Democrats to equal the "No more money for foreign conflicts" Republicans.
-
I'm starting to wonder if we are seeing the first signs of the RA trying to have something of a military left when all this is over. This is all just speculation, but at this point in the war, some Russian general somewhere has to be thinking about trying to preserve what little conventional strength they have left.
-
Til Valhalla!
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
There has been an ongoing series of minor border clashes with India. Not a war, but definitely fire and fist fights.