The_Capt Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 6 minutes ago, hcrof said: Hi all, another long time dormant member here re-emerging to say thanks for such a great thread. This really is the best analysis of the war I know of, due to the mix of on the ground people (Haiduk, kraze) and knowledgeable experts from lots of different backgrounds. I keep thinking about what a Russian or Ukrainian armoured offensive would actually look like in practice. They would require some kind of staging area, but surely these would be visible to ubiquitous drones and then nailed with a arty/air/SRBM strike before they leave the starting line? How long would it take for a brigade or more to assemble like that, or do modern armies stay dispersed even just before a big push? Maybe that is why the Russians have not concentrated for their big offensive? They would be too vulnerable before the order to move out? But if that is the case, how does the UA solve that problem? So this is a really good question that link back to all the discussion on the "future of conventional mass" we had I-do-not-know-how-many-pages-back, but it was a lot. This conversation often gets hijacked, or starts with the "what about the tank?" Regardless something odd has been happening to mass this entire war, particularly Russian mass. Ukrainian defence has been able, thanks to C4ISR and deep strike - no small amount unmanned - appears to be able to project friction along the entire operational system of Russian mass. Which is unfortunate as the Russians appear to be able to create their own quite well; however, compounded by UA ability to hit all the way back to the SLOC nodes with this level of precision and regularity appears to have created an ersatz air-superiority situation [note: not actual Ukrainian air-superiority by the definitions that we understand but the effect is kind of the same]. So as you note correctly, Russian mass does not seem to work. Now how much is Russian poor management of their forces and how much directly due to Ukrainian defence is unknown and will likely have to wait for a post-war analysis. The other question is, "what about the UA?" Are they under the same constraints? Again, unknown. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 1 hour ago, CHEqTRO said: First T90AM spotted out in the wild it seems. Also has “Nakidka” thermal camouflage. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 UR-77 mineclearing vehicle usage in Mariupol 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 4 minutes ago, Haiduk said: UR-77 mineclearing vehicle usage in Mariupol So that is a fail, btw. I am pretty sure that is supposed to be a line charge and it looks like it only partially detonated. That would because the thing was never designed for urban areas and a high-angle kink in the hose is going to cause a "blow off disconnect". Unless of course this all just "let's lob things that kinda go boom time". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHEqTRO Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/ukraine-non-standard-ammunition A report by the DCSA has been uploaded with what the Ukranian army has asked to buy from the americans. There is a long list of material, but something that caught my eye is that they specifically asked for 125 mm *HE* ammo for their tanks, but there is no mention of AP ammo. So, either this is just the writers of the report forgetting about the AP ammo (or rather in the package both types of ammunition are included, but they just refer to both of them as HE, because reasons ), there was a pre-war imbalance in the quantities of HE ammo in comparition to AP ammo, in such a way that, although usage of both types of ammunition is similar, they are running low in HE ammo; or rather that the past or expected future usage of AP ammo has been neglible compared to HE. That would show that tank on tank warfare has been limited or neglible, and that despite that, they still want to keep their tanks operational for use against soft targets. Some food for thought for the "tank is dead" argument. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huba Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 4 minutes ago, CHEqTRO said: https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/ukraine-non-standard-ammunition A report by the DCSA has been uploaded with what the Ukranian army has asked to buy from the americans. There is a long list of material, but something that caught my eye is that they specifically asked for 125 mm *HE* ammo for their tanks, but there is no mention of AP ammo. So, either this is just the writers of the report forgetting about the AP ammo (or rather in the package both types of ammunition are included, but they just refer to both of them as HE, because reasons ), there was a pre-war imbalance in the quantities of HE ammo in comparition to AP ammo, in such a way that, although usage of both types of ammunition is similar, they are running low in HE ammo; or rather that the past or expected future usage of AP ammo has been neglible compared to HE. That would show that tank on tank warfare has been limited or neglible, and that despite that, they still want to keep their tanks operational for use against soft targets. Some food for thought for the "tank is dead" argument. It may also be an argument in discussion about viability of Leo 1, which greatest shortcoming is supposedly inadequacy in tank on tank situations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckdyke Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 They wouldn't have manufactured the Leo2 if the Leo 1 was good enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 23 minutes ago, The_Capt said: So that is a fail, btw. I am pretty sure that is supposed to be a line charge and it looks like it only partially detonated. That would because the thing was never designed for urban areas and a high-angle kink in the hose is going to cause a "blow off disconnect". Unless of course this all just "let's lob things that kinda go boom time". Yes, they are purposely using these to demolish structures / strongpoints, not clear lanes. Possibly firing at high angle to so charge “piles” more on the target. That said, I don’t think the line charge in the UR-77 is particularly long. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huba Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 (edited) 7 minutes ago, chuckdyke said: They wouldn't have manufactured the Leo2 if the Leo 1 was good enough. No doubt. Leo 1 would made sense only if it was about to be delivered (as would be the case if the process wasn't obstructed since it was first proposed), with the notion that modern stuff will follow anyway. It's always nice to have something instead of nothing. Edited April 25, 2022 by Huba 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHEqTRO Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 10 minutes ago, Huba said: It may also be an argument in discussion about viability of Leo 1, which greatest shortcoming is supposedly inadequacy in tank on tank situations. The whole argument about Leo 1 not being good enough was always stupid in my opinion. Those leopards 1 would have been as good, if not better, than those polish T72M, and yet the Ukranians still ask for them. Both the T72 and the Leo1 will give the Ukranian forces mass, mobility, and breakthrougt capability, just as any other "modern" tank, without considering their anti-tank capabilities. Also, that shortcoming would depend from which type of ammo the leopards would come with. For example, the DM63 APFSDS-T ammunition should be able to penetrate frontal T72 armor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinophile Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 (edited) @The_Capt mentioned it earlier, and I'm also really curious about the UKR state of things. We talk a bumpteen pages about Russia, Putin et al but we have little discussion on UKR mil-pol relationships. The screaming tantrum baby of Russia has gotten lots of attention, but we need to do some due diligence on the real player in this war, the one who actually matters (because without them this entire situation would not exist) - the Ukrainian Ground Forces. How does the UA actually function within the political framework? Do they develop and set their military goals in isolation? Is Zelensky involved much or more just informed? EDIT - Just saw this on NYT. Political related but still relevant. It set the bar for the military - No Surrender. Stand and Fight. At a moment like that, those words need to be said. This probably gave Zel a lot of credit with the UA. What is the operational decision making process? Is there a Stavka/Joint Staffs? How well do the UGF and UAF communicate & coordinate? Edited April 25, 2022 by Kinophile 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 2 minutes ago, chuckdyke said: They wouldn't have manufactured the Leo2 if the Leo 1 was good enough. "Good enough" for what? A piece of 2x4 with a nail hammered through it is "good enough" for some fights. Maybe the fight the UA want to use the Leo1s in isn't "straight up fighting T-80s and upgraded T-72s", and it is, indeed, "good enough" for their purposes. And this is a rhetorical question, by the way, as should be apparent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huba Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 (edited) 5 minutes ago, CHEqTRO said: The whole argument about Leo 1 not being good enough was always stupid in my opinion. Those leopards 1 would have been as good, if not better, than those polish T72M, and yet the Ukranians still ask for them. Both the T72 and the Leo1 will give the Ukranian forces mass, mobility, and breakthrougt capability, just as any other "modern" tank, without considering their anti-tank capabilities. Also, that shortcoming would depend from which type of ammo the leopards would come with. For example, the DM63 APFSDS-T ammunition should be able to penetrate frontal T72 armor. That's my thinking exactly - give them everything and a kitchen sink if it can make a difference. The talk of it being inadequate was just an excuse to obstruct. At this point the discussion is probably moot though, as the whole process of delivery wasn't even started, and in the meantime deliveries of modern stuff will hopefully be announced on this NATO conference on Tuesday. Edited April 25, 2022 by Huba 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHEqTRO Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 So, it seems that maybe tonights attack against Bryansk was not carried by Tochka-U missiles, but rather by TB2 drones. I find the Tochka attack more credible, but it seems that actually a TB2 was shoot down in the Kursk area, supposedly coming back from the attack, so . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 1 hour ago, Haiduk said: UR-77 mineclearing vehicle usage in Mariupol I haven't seen a thing like this. Quite bizarre to see in action. Not sure how this works clearing mines. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHEqTRO Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Huba said: At this point the discussion is probably moot though, as the whole process of delivery wasn't even started, and in the meantime deliveries of modern stuff will hopefully be announced on this NATO conference on Tuesday. Yeah, hopefully those poor MIT guys that the CIA has trapped on their basements developing new weapons for Ukraine, like those Phoenix Ghost drones, have still more surprises for us. Edited April 25, 2022 by CHEqTRO 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertFox Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 As for 105mm armed NATO tanks (M7-gun/M-68gun) being sufficient for the ukraine environment...I haven´t seen anything driving around there what an M60A3-TTS, a Leo1A5, a Leo-C2 or a M1-IP can´t handle. Engagement ranges appear to be well below 3000metres anyways (that was AFAIK one of the core arguments for intro of 120mm back in the 70/80s). Availability of APDSFS-T (Tungsten or DU) might be a factor, however the US has that gun on their M1128 Stryker MGS and in Europe (NATO) AFAIK Greece still has a fairly big armada of Leo1-GR (350ish). It would certainly help to get as much fire on the enemy as possible, so using them, if available, has IMHO merit, although it would mean builing up a new logistic chain for supplying those vehicles (not to be underestimated). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 41 minutes ago, akd said: Yes, they are purposely using these to demolish structures / strongpoints, not clear lanes. Possibly firing at high angle to so charge “piles” more on the target. That said, I don’t think the line charge in the UR-77 is particularly long. Wiki says 90m for length, which does not make much sense as tac minefields are normally min 200m in the west. Maybe they are lobbing it in, I can see a line but that might be the detonator line. Apparently they did the same thing in Syria, as some sort of demo-gun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 5 hours ago, Der Zeitgeist said: Bonus points for smuggling Switchblade drones into Moscow on May 9th. What Putin's big parade needs is an epidemic of sugar in gas tanks. Just imagine if half the vehicles just stopped moving right in Red Square. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huba Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 (edited) 16 minutes ago, dan/california said: What Putin's big parade needs is an epidemic of sugar in gas tanks. Just imagine if half the vehicles just stopped moving right in Red Square. Imagine one hit by a Switchblade right in front of Putin. But why go for tank if the big guy is present... Laughing aside, this must be a serious consideration for RU security, and not something easily solvable. I'd imagine that any visible security measures (like putting Putin behind armored glass Pope style, or having AD present) would look like a sign of weakness. Edited April 25, 2022 by Huba 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbindc Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 If anyone can direct me to what, in practical logistical and economic terms, the bombing at Bryansk accomplishes I'd appreciate it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackMoria Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 24 minutes ago, DesertFox said: As for 105mm armed NATO tanks (M7-gun/M-68gun) being sufficient for the ukraine environment...I haven´t seen anything driving around there what an M60A3-TTS, a Leo1A5, a Leo-C2 or a M1-IP can´t handle. Engagement ranges appear to be well below 3000metres anyways (that was AFAIK one of the core arguments for intro of 120mm back in the 70/80s). Availability of APDSFS-T (Tungsten or DU) might be a factor, however the US has that gun on their M1128 Stryker MGS and in Europe (NATO) AFAIK Greece still has a fairly big armada of Leo1-GR (350ish). It would certainly help to get as much fire on the enemy as possible, so using them, if available, has IMHO merit, although it would mean builing up a new logistic chain for supplying those vehicles (not to be underestimated). Assuming the fidelity of the CM:BS modelling of weapon systems is near to reflecting reality, the M7 gun on the Leo 1 should be fine. By happenstance, I was playing a mission last night (Rollin' On The River), in which my 3 x Stryker MGS were hull down behind a railway berm when 10 x T90AM emerged from a treeline in column formation at 1675 metres range. End result - 10 dead T90s, no losses to the Stryker MGS. That is assuming the fidelity of the data is somewhat accurate. Assuming so, the Leo 1 is not a useless contribution to Ukraine. Leo 2s would be better but the Leo 1 is what the offer on the table is. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Zeitgeist Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 9 minutes ago, billbindc said: If anyone can direct me to what, in practical logistical and economic terms, the bombing at Bryansk accomplishes I'd appreciate it. The biggest effect will probably be a general air defense and drone hysteria tying up resources and leading to false engagements like this one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 17 dead in Russian military research facility fire last week (msn.com) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 10 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said: The biggest effect will probably be a general air defense and drone hysteria tying up resources and leading to false engagements like this one. Rough day to be a goose in southwestern Russia 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.