Lethaface

Now that's some serious package.

Indeed big booms in Russian rear is best imo. I don't think we have seen everything yet this winter season, but that's just a guess/feeling. Could very well be that the movements inside Belarus have altered some Ukrainian plans. With enough ammo for the Himars and other PGMs I'd expect Ukraine to continue putting the hurt on.

You've been reading too much Guderian

That's something which I don't 'understand'. In the end the only thing what matters is what gets delivered, not what's announced or trending on twitter. I'm not a fan of Scholz / some of the German policy stuff because they say and do different things all the time. But that's rather a known symptom of politicians. Which is why i'm not in the Germany bashing; anyone with some knowledge of Germany/Germans knew that war and German participation in war especially with links to the painful history, could predict they wouldn't be first to the microphone. I agree that Germany should take more responsibility also on the terrain of Defense given their weight in Europe, but that's a step-by-step process. In the end Germany is following what the rest is doing, so that's that. Of course I would applaud it if they'd take more initiative, but well I try to keep my expectations in such a way that I'm not often disappointed My country is 'looking good' with the push for PzH2000 deliveries etc and I'm happy with those things but at the same time our defense is a mess. So equally deserving bashing, probably the same goes for every government in EU. More trust and support inside the EU wouldn't hurt.

Against domestic interests? In a democracy not necessarily a wise idea. But luckily it's not a zero sum game in most instances.

On another note I can already see the Twitter / Witchunt Feeds going should a significant number of the send Challengers be out of commission after a couple of battles. I don't think UK gov would be happy with such PR from a (geo)political perspective. Sending 200 creates expectations which might not be met. Anyway the tank yeast infection has returned :D. I'll get myself some other form of yeast holding stuff and see myself out.

I think you're missing the point. Anyway imo switching a tank in a professional army isn't the same as switching a car for a private person. But maybe I'm thinking too difficult. The question is what the UK wants with it's tank force; decisions like these usually aren't made in a couple of minutes. Doing away with the current tanks before answering that question and assuming that what becomes of the tankers is small beer which will be solved anyhow along the way is a classical example if how fubars happen. But I digress.

Great argumentation.

I'd say no it doesn't, plus as a bonus the repair place can't be shelled by Russia.

Although repeating myself What about the current tankers & mechanics? One anecdote is my country, we got rid of our tanks but then somebody realized we would also lose all knowledge & experience of the tank arm. So we leased back a battalion of the same tanks from Germany. Now it's not exactly the same case, but there is a similarity: trained personnel. Now if UK could make a decision overnight and join a multinational program and have the training commence within a couple of months: that's one thing. If such a program would take a couple of years, there's probably not many tankers left in service by the time that they're ready to start.

I think you can safely assume that as a fact.

That could be an argument indeed. However AFAIK they already do repairs on howitzers etc in Poland. Plus Poland borders Ukraine so if a repair facility would be located in Western Ukraine the distance to the front would be greater than the extra distance to Poland anyway. Unless one would locate such a facility in western Poland. Also I imagine the 'field repair', beyond topping of oil and the likes of modern tank engines is to swap out the whole engine pack and send it back to a factory/workplace?

Oh I get the basic idea, economies of scale and standardization. But I see some practical concerns. Buying the Abrams out of the available stock and shipping them to Ukraine seems to give less pracitcal problems imo, compared to robbing the British tank arm of their service tanks and shipping them to Ukraine, while shipping the Abrams to UK and switching the whole tank arm including training/etc. But I'm repeating myself, guess I made my point but it's free to disagree or see things differently :).

I guess there's room for a 'Special Tank Service', featuring a motley crew of King Tigers, Jagdpanthers among other exotical AFVS and commanded by John Cleese. Probably would make Putin's envy of Great Britain even bigger given his affection for 'special' stuff.

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.

What the defense industry like or don't like is one thing, there is also such a thing as strategic national interests and for example France would never float that boat. The other thing would be that you are replacing one temporary item with another temporary item costing quite some overhead. Why not send the Abrams from stock to Ukraine instead?. Lass hassle, same/better result as Ukraine also doesn't have to deal with the logistics which seem not to be worth it for the 200 challengers that exist. If the West is going to send heavy AFVs, I'd say they better chose one and deliver a full service package to Ukraine - including training, logistics tail, etc. But I guess because of industry /national / geopolitical interests that won't happen.

One thing I'd like to add to your nice list is 'means of production' for almost all items on your list (only humans are self-reproductive at the moment). And that means should be flexible, able to be geared up or down in a relative short timeframe according to demand. AFAIK most of NATO countries, even the larger ones, wouldn't have had enough ammo/kit to have sustained the war as long as Ukraine had sofar. Creating large stocks of stuff that will be out of date in a couple of years is necessary now I guess, but not the answer for the future if we don't want to get in the same situation we are in now. Imo parts of NATO should cooperate more on the means of production and standardization of used kit. This is perhaps more of a requirement for the smaller countries compared to the larger ones.

The issue with this (and other posts calling for countries to do away their tanks to Ukraine and get new ones) is: what are your tankers / mechanics etc going to do for the ~decade that it takes to get a new tank in service? Train with tanks from the museum?

Well put.

You don't find TOW, TOW finds you I get the armor difference between m113 and tanks and yes in a duel / close fighting of course the tanks has more staying power but if you're playing against an experienced player he will look to ambush your vehicles at long range with the TOW which has great optics, accuracy and and mostly one hit, one kill statistics. And they are much more mobile compared to m48/m60 tanks. Anyway each to his own, obviously it all depends on context.

Haven't played that campaign yet, mostly play H2H but it's still on my list for someday. In PBEM the Bradleys are borderline 'OP' I'd say, smoking BMPs left right and center and often getting the drop on MBTs with the TOW. Although obviously they aren't really intended for dueling tanks and will go down to any serious accurate incoming, but the BMP-2 30mm struggles against them at anything but close range.

Indeed. It has been very good in PBEMs for me and my opponents lol. I don't know, it's really not my experience. The main threat are the TOW vehicles, apart from Abrams and perhaps TTS.

Indeed a downside of mirror matches. But I have a fix for you, check the @slysniper tournaments of FGM ;-). Non-mirror battles with relative scoring per side. In a perfect world perhaps. But it doesn't take that much imagination to 'see' that our USSR force is a forward (security) element of a larger force and is tasked to move and occupy the road through the valley which is free of enemy forces according to good intelligence. However contact was made upon arrival at the edge of the valley and Bn mortars are still setting up. The heavy artillery is working but not on this grid square as there was no known enemy forces here. You'll have to make do given the situation at hand, commander! FWIW my forces rushed in full view of the enemy tanks and TOW carriers and while I lost most of a platoon, the rest was now moving in the valley, ready to control it. While the AT-4s were working revenge on the enemy AFVs, to very good effect.

One downside of the PBEM++ system is that you can't look at the previous turns anymore (unless one saves a game I guess). But I did still have this screenshot: Not sure if I'd go with your plan to be honest. I assume you want to use that open ground for the charge and cover it with smoke? But where you want to put the smoke? I think the slope has enough elevation that smoke in the valley won't cover the treelines. Besides there's only 2x10 120mm rounds of smoke IIRC? And it would take ~10minutes for spotting rounds to arrive. By that time the US forces will probably have at least a platoon of infantry in the valley near that left objective (I had 2) and or near enough for dragons to fire into your forces moving towards the valley, smoke or not.

I had the same 'issue' of not knowing the US setup since my opponent didn't realize it was a mirror battle, but if both players send their RED turn first (just a click) the situation is same for both players. In the end I had fun with the tactical situation of the map but it felt like a gamble for sure. Usually I too prefer attack/defend over meeting engagements. The latter often feature 'need for speed' situations which look more like a racing sim than a combat sim ;-). Anyhow in this battle the race is more for the soviets which kind of fits how they should be played I guess so in the end it didn't bother me. But probably I'd fell different if my whole company would have been toast on the first turn