How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[chuckdyke]

14 minutes ago, akd said:

 Like saying Sherman 75s were outdated and useless in 1944.

I agree with that statement but not as an infantry support tank. With regards to Leo 1 I would rate the Centurion higher in regards of armor protection. Tanks in WW2 had tracks and a gun but that is the only thing they have in common with modern tanks. The Cold War tanks like Centurion M60 and Leo1 became obsolete with the introduction of the Sagger which outranged them. In WW2 infantry had at best 200 meters to knock out enemy tanks. 

Edited April 25, 2022 by chuckdyke

[chuckdyke]

I am very skeptical about YT but not when this man is speaking. 

[DesertFox]

They look better with the new owners now

 

 

[sburke]

1 hour ago, Gpig said:

"War means War"

BBC - Russia's Lavrov, latest comments . . .

Okay. This is a little unnerving . . .

not really.  Russian threats just don't carry much weight anymore.  As @dan/californianoted, the threat is pretty hollow.  If Lavrov wants a no fly zone all he has to do is try a strike on NATO territory. Short of that it is just sour grapes from the losing side.  Maybe should have thought of consequences prior to Feb 24th.

[sross112]

1 hour ago, BeondTheGrave said:

This has been the US/GER concept since at least the 1970s, maybe earlier? Not sure on that. 

But the general idea of creating Battalion Scale TFs by swapping a coy (TOE in CMCW seems to put it at 2 Coys for TFs? But I had thought US Battalions were triangular, plus extras? Not saying that their research is wrong just that I'm not familiar with it. Always been curious tbh) between different units in the brigade. So 2-4 Armor TF may keep 2 armor Coys of its own, but then task force with A/1-76 Mech, which would get the spare Coy from 2-4. Then either one or more of the battalion TFs would get extra non-organic goodies from Brigade HQ based on mission and need. This is the basic structure as laid out in the old Active Defense FMs. Surely there were more variations than just the old armor/inf swap, like creating a 'heavy' battalion by surging resources to it. But this is what I have read. 

The concept of the battalion TF organizationally isn't all that new, its making the BCT the cornerstone maneuver force of the army. As I recall the US Army committed to this path under the Bush admin, while the rest of NATO followed after. 

I think the concept was developed during mid to late WW2. The Germans did it more out of necessity I think for fire brigade type units especially on the eastern front. In the US Armored Divisions it was the Regimental Combat Teams. The UK kept the brigade concept after the war and the Germans switched to it a couple years after re-establishing their army. The US experimented with different concepts and settled on what we know of today as the BCT in the early 60's. Their is a bunch of evolution to it and the link below is a good paper written on it:

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/Brigade-AHistory.pdf

[Huba]

19 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

I agree with that statement but not as an infantry support tank. With regards to Leo 1 I would rate the Centurion higher in regards of armor protection. Tanks in WW2 had tracks and a gun but that is the only thing they have in common with modern tanks. The Cold War tanks like Centurion M60 and Leo1 became obsolete with the introduction of the Sagger which outranged them. In WW2 infantry had at best 200 meters to knock out enemy tanks. 

We are gettin a tad offtopic here, but mind that in this particular case:

- combat ranges are short, 3km is rather maximum, it's usually around half that or less. Check @The_Capt air survey of Donbas or just Google Earth

- the leos that are discussed have modernized FCS, including thermals and are of top quality in this regard compared to oposition

- and finally, this isn't a OR case, getting Leo1s doesn't mean UA is not getting other stuff, quite the contrary. 

[c3k]

Edited...because @BigDog944 already called it.

Edited April 26, 2022 by c3k

[MikeyD]

About Leopard 1. If you think of it as NOT AT TANK it could be of some utility. The trouble would come from trying to use it as a modern MBT. An equivalent concept would be Stryker MGS. There are combat uses for it, just not as a tank.

[akd]

More open-source analysis of Russian armed forces casualties:

https://zona-media.translate.goog/article/2022/04/25/bodycount?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

[Huba]

9 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

About Leopard 1. If you think of it as NOT AT TANK it could be of some utility. The trouble would come from trying to use it as a modern MBT. An equivalent concept would be Stryker MGS. There are combat uses for it, just not as a tank.

Yeah, that. Do not engage MBTs face to face unless really forced to, do not let anything HEAT hit you. Other than that, you can demolish lighter AFVs easily from huge range with HESH and reasonably withstand anything up to 30mm autocannons, which I think is a lot really. For general for support Leo1s might be better then most Ts out there. 

Edited April 26, 2022 by Huba

[chuckdyke]

16 minutes ago, Huba said:

and finally, this isn't a OR case, getting Leo1s doesn't mean UA is not getting other stuff, quite the contrary. 

People seem to think that they are superior to the T64 and up. For Russia attrition is the way to win the war for the Ukraine fighting with western equipment it is not. They need something which can knock out Russian equipment without occurring significant losses themselves. Now comes the tricky part to win they need to maneuver and kick out Russia and liberate all of the Ukraine. Germany in WW2 when everything went according to plan 1941-1942 lost 25% fighting over the same area. Is this something the Ukraine can afford?

[panzermartin]

Very harsh words from official chinese lips, I think I haven't heard before. "Stop holding the candle to the devil" ?. Wow. Maybe this clears up some things on where China stands in the event of a World wide clash. 

[DesertFox]

4 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Very harsh words from official chinese lips, I think I haven't heard before. "Stop holding the candle to the devil" ?. Wow. Maybe this clears up some things on where China stands in the event of a World wide clash. 

Yeah that´s the same CCP asshats who let elderly starve to death in Shanghai after they sealed them in their homes. Disgusting! However enough of that OT stuff from me.

Lockdown-induced food shortage, starvation infuriate millions in Shanghai | Business Standard News (business-standard.com)

Shanghai's covid lockdown: food shortages, drones, starving animals - Washington Post

[chuckdyke]

This is how you take Urban Terrain with your superior logistics. You give the occupants an opportunity to go home. Saladin knew it would be a bloodbath, putin is clearly not on the same level of competency. 

 

[keas66]

11 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Very harsh words from official chinese lips, I think I haven't heard before. "Stop holding the candle to the devil" ?. Wow. Maybe this clears up some things on where China stands in the event of a World wide clash. 

Not sure I give a flying fig for what the Chinese think about much of anything . They are making moves in the Solomon's which one hopes ends as well for them as it did for their North East Asian Neighbors half a century ago  . Apart from that they probably realize there is nothing good coming out of the Ukrainian Mess with regards their own concerns - unless they feel like cannibalizing their Northern Neighbor . A United Western Alliance and a more focused America with stronger feelings about confronting their Authoritarian  Competitors .

[panzermartin]

3 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

Yeah that´s the same CCP asshats who let elderly starve to death in Shanghai after they sealed them in their homes. Disgusting! However enough of that OT stuff from me.

Lockdown-induced food shortage, starvation infuriate millions in Shanghai | Business Standard News (business-standard.com)

Shanghai's covid lockdown: food shortages, drones, starving animals - Washington Post

Well, I won't disagree on that. 

[Kinophile]

I'm very curious why a UKR Tank brigade would have no inf organic to it. Even if they're operating in close relation with a MI brigade, it seems unstable to not have an infantry screening/security capability.

[chuckdyke]

1 minute ago, Kinophile said:

'm very curious why a UKR Tank brigade would have no inf organic to it. Even if they're operating in close relation with a MI brigade, it seems unstable to not have an infantry screening/security capability.

If you purchase NATO equipment you need to adopt NATO tactics. I can understand the hesitancy to reveal your formation management. For the Abrams, I think you need an export model without the box of tricks and treats. 

[dan/california]

26 minutes ago, keas66 said:

Not sure I give a flying fig for what the Chinese think about much of anything . They are making moves in the Solomon's which one hopes ends as well for them as it did for their North East Asian Neighbors half a century ago  . Apart from that they probably realize there is nothing good coming out of the Ukrainian Mess with regards their own concerns - unless they feel like cannibalizing their Northern Neighbor . A United Western Alliance and a more focused America with stronger feelings about confronting their Authoritarian  Competitors .

I still think that at some point Xi will realize about Taiwan what the Japanese learned the hard way about Hawaii. It cost 1/1000 as much to buy the place as it does to invade it. Oh, and China's northern neighbor has no friends, and virtually no population east of the Urals...

[akd]

21 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

If you purchase NATO equipment you need to adopt NATO tactics. I can understand the hesitancy to reveal your formation management. For the Abrams, I think you need an export model without the box of tricks and treats. 

That’s strange, because there are quite a few NATO members who are transferring their Warsaw-pact equipment to Ukraine. Do their NATO tactics transfer with the equipment, or are these NATO members prohibited from using NATO tactics with their Warsaw-pact equipment? What’s the penalty imposed if they do, and is it in Euros or Rubles? I mean it is a Rule, so there must be a fine.

Edited April 26, 2022 by akd

[dan/california]

16 minutes ago, akd said:

That’s strange, because there are quite a few NATO members who are transferring their Warsaw-pact equipment to Ukraine. Do their NATO tactics transfer with the equipment, or are these NATO members prohibited from using NATO tactics with their Warsaw-pact equipment? What’s the penalty imposed if they do, and is it in Euros or Rubles? I mean it is a Rule, so there must be a fine.

What Nato tactics require is Nato ISR, and Nato Style training, and both have been supplied in ample quantity. The Ukrainian's are not only demonstrating that they paid attention in class, But they have surpassed their teachers in many areas. Although are quite content to let Lockheed make the missiles as we keep sending enough of them. And even there The Stugna-P is a brilliant piece of good enough engineering.

Edited April 26, 2022 by dan/california
spelling

[BeondTheGrave]

11 minutes ago, dan/california said:

I still think that at some point Xi will realize about Taiwan what the Japanese learned the hard way about Hawaii. It cost 1/1000 as much to buy the place as it does to invade it. Oh, and China's northern neighbor has no friends, and virtually no population east of the Urals...

I once heard a different version of this. Germany never invaded France a third time because they realized it was easy to travel to Alsace for the weekend than run the whole place for a lifetime. German European imperialism was defeated by German beach chair imperialism 

[chuckdyke]

5 minutes ago, akd said:

transferring their Warsaw-pact equipment to Ukraine.

It is Warsaw-pact equipment. I don't have an idea of the computer software which comes with the Abrams tank. Is it of the same standard as the US uses? Recently Australia updated their Abrams to the M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams. On the outside it looks like the same tank. It is to integrate common tactics as I understand it. Not much point in purchasing it if the model is designed to operate in concert with the latest wizardry modern technology produces. Ok you donate a $4.5 million tank to Ukraine what is the point if they treat it like it was a T72 tank? Who knows the ranging equipment is designed to operate from behind the horizon? To use this suggested tactic, needs training otherwise no point to supply. 

[Battlefront.com]

Just now, chuckdyke said:

It is Warsaw-pact equipment. I don't have an idea of the computer software which comes with the Abrams tank. Is it of the same standard as the US uses? Recently Australia updated their Abrams to the M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams. On the outside it looks like the same tank. It is to integrate common tactics as I understand it. Not much point in purchasing it if the model is designed to operate in concert with the latest wizardry modern technology produces. Ok you donate a $4.5 million tank to Ukraine what is the point if they treat it like it was a T72 tank? Who knows the ranging equipment is designed to operate from behind the horizon? To use this suggested tactic, needs training otherwise no point to supply. 

There are all kinds of complications that come with a new piece of equipment, including rather silly things like labels needing to be in Ukrainian.  Which is why for short term reasons it's smart to give Ukrainians as much upgraded Soviet era stuff as possible.  Much easier to teach an experienced Ukrainian T-72A or B crew how to use the unique features of a Russian B3M than it is to train them on an Abrams.

However, if you send them something quite different they can learn how to use it.  With time and, in this case, an extra crew member   But that is tactical doctrine, not organizational.  They could use 3 Abrams Platoons instead of the standard 4 if they wanted to and that wouldn't be problematic.  Perhaps not optimal, but I don't think detrimental.

Steve

[sross112]

46 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

I'm very curious why a UKR Tank brigade would have no inf organic to it. Even if they're operating in close relation with a MI brigade, it seems unstable to not have an infantry screening/security capability.

I wondered that too when I was looking up those brigade structures. Their 2 active brigades, the 1st and 17th, have wikipedia entries but I can't find any other information to confirm. The 1st shows 3 tank bn's and the 17th shows 3 tank and 1 inf bn. It is possible wikipedia is wrong and the 1st tank has an inf bn as well but I can't seem to confirm or deny it.

Even the 1 inf bn is really light on infantry. The early armored divisions on both sides in WW2 were very tank heavy that way and rapidly evolved to equal numbers of armor and inf bn's or inf heavy. The only reason I can think to justify it would be doctrinal in nature. If the UA decided that their doctrine for force composition and tactical/operational usage was based on defensive actions, their intention for the tank brigades may be integrate where needed with the other brigades for a heavy punch or counter punch but not to operate entirely on their own. Maybe?