How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

Just now, womble said:

This seems like an excellent reason to choose Leo over M1. Not just for the training requirement reductions, but because it makes keeping the fleet running easier, if all you need is a stream of reconditioned parts coming east and worn-out ones going west. Existing facilities [Edit:] in safe NATO territory [/edit] can do the actual repairs and you don't need to create repair depots up near the front.

Sorting out that log train is its own headache, though. It's just a problem that can be dealt with in parallel using different resources to the actual fighting end of the system.

I think may work for helicopters but the problem with a minimalist approach to amour logistical support stretching back to Poland is that you are going to need 2-3 times the number of tanks to keep what you want in the field.  A tank with a relatively minor issue, say in the FCS, will need to be pulled all the way back to Poland - and out of battle.  While a more forward logistics support concept sees the tech go to the tank and simply switch out the parts.  In western nations this is up to entire power packs, the aim is to keep the tank forward near battle for as long as possible.  

This will mean if you want 100 tanks in battle, you can count on 2/3rds either on their way back or forward for maintenance and repairs.  And then add logistical vulnerability of having a LOC extending well over 1000kms.  This will mean rail/heavy haul unless you want to burn out your tanks driving them.

I gotta be honest, I am not sure why Russia can have contractors doing assaults, while the west is shy about having them run maint depots back a dozen kms. 

[Boche]

29 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Looking by the chart, Spain has surprisingly large fleet of Leos. 300+ pieces for a country with no natural enemies in sight nor special post-colonial obligations (like France and UK) gives some hope they may throw several vehicles extra.

 

 

Well I would disagree. Taking away Eastern Europe, who now has seen their main threat lose their military in Ukraine, and Greece, We are the last country in Europe bordering a hostile neighbour. We have a history of scuffles with them and I do believe that eventually its gonna go hot in someway.

But anyway Its no secret (I think) that Spain has suffered from the german syndrome of neglecting its military. We may have a big fleet of Leos (for some reason) but id bet their readiness level isnt that great. In the summer the minster of defense stated that we would send any to Ukraine due to ther "pitiful state". Then again this could be her just using that as a political excuse but I wouldnt be suprised. Ive seen worse during the 10 years ive been working with the Spanish Armed Forces. Rumorology sort of confirms it- Im sure we could send some number, but not as many as we could if the fleet was operational without neglecting our own needs.

 

https://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20220802/8446090/espana-enviara-tanques-leopard-ucrania-inservibles.html

[Astrophel]

The discussion on (eventually) backfilling MBT's with new orders is academic imho - except to those companies looking for new orders.

The situation in Ukraine currently means MBT's can be used to break through the russian defences they have been digging for several months and hopefully get them running back to their country.  This is a one-off unique situation.  In my somewhat amateur view MBT's became obsolete when the Apache Helicopter started to fly.  In Nato thinking the Apache obsoleted the tactical nukes which had previously been Nato's answer to mass MBT assaults.  This is why Nato has a couple of hundred old tactical nukes versus thousands on the Russian side - Nato air power will annihilate russian tank assaults.

Nato backfilling needs to happen with future drone-based weapon systems.  Tanks may be useful ... but probably not in the roles for which MBT's were conceived.  In my view most of the Nato MBTs should be given to Ukraine right now because NATO won't be needing them, especially when russia capitulates.  And Ukraine can use them right now.  

The main risk right now with deploying MBTs is that russia escalates to their tactical nukes with the loss of control that brings for all parties. Likely this is the reason Germany is being so contemplative as well they might, and wisely so.

Edited January 15, 2023 by Astrophel

[The_MonkeyKing]

15 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I think may work for helicopters but the problem with a minimalist approach to amour logistical support stretching back to Poland is that you are going to need 2-3 times the number of tanks to keep what you want in the field.  A tank with a relatively minor issue, say in the FCS, will need to be pulled all the way back to Poland - and out of battle.  While a more forward logistics support concept sees the tech go to the tank and simply switch out the parts.  In western nations this is up to entire power packs, the aim is to keep the tank forward near battle for as long as possible.  

This will mean if you want 100 tanks in battle, you can count on 2/3rds either on their way back or forward for maintenance and repairs.  And then add logistical vulnerability of having a LOC extending well over 1000kms.  This will mean rail/heavy haul unless you want to burn out your tanks driving them.

I gotta be honest, I am not sure why Russia can have contractors doing assaults, while the west is shy about having them run maint depots back a dozen kms. 

Yeah, MBTs get hit probably the most on the battlefield (and live to be repaired). This creates a need for constant repairs.

[Kinophile]

Timeline on availability German manufactured Gepard ammo -  June July to hit 100k+. Hopefully supplying more well before that. 

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/germany-will-provide-ukraine-with-300-thousand-rounds-of-ammunition-for-the-gepard-spaag/

[Kinophile]

17 minutes ago, Astrophel said:

In my somewhat amateur view MBT's became obsolete when the Apache Helicopter started to fly.  In Nato thinking the Apache obsoleted the tactical nukes which had previously been Nato's answer to mass MBT assaults.  

You've heard of SHORAD, manpads, etc,  yes? 

Apache Obsoleted Nukes...eh Interesting angle. 

So the Apache helicopter,  a tactical aviation platform obsoleted both its tactical level intended target (MBTs) and completely unrelated  NATO  operational/strategic doctrine using nuclear weapons? 

Hmm... 

[Zeleban]

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

[Splinty]

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.

[kevinkin]

38 minutes ago, Astrophel said:

Likely this is the reason Germany is being so contemplative as well they might, and wisely so.

So in the near future most of NATO donates AFVs and Germany ops out - where does that leave Germany? They are in the bull's eye anyway if those tacs go off since a major threshold would have been breeched and would potentially spread across Europe. Withholding equipment will not change the strategic picture and begs the question whether Germany's leaders are beholden to Putin. I don't think they are. But the optics are bad. 

Edited January 15, 2023 by kevinkin

[sburke]

41 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I gotta be honest, I am not sure why Russia can have contractors doing assaults, while the west is shy about having them run maint depots back a dozen kms. 

because Russia is a direct combatant.  What happens when Russia hits one of those depots and kills a dozen civilian contractors from the US or UK?  Will it spark a political backlash to either commit troops or withdrawal support?  Is that a risk worth taking right now?

[Zeleban]

[The_MonkeyKing]

53 minutes ago, Boche said:

Well I would disagree. Taking away Eastern Europe, who now has seen their main threat lose their military in Ukraine, and Greece, We are the last country in Europe bordering a hostile neighbour. We have a history of scuffles with them and I do believe that eventually its gonna go hot in someway.

But anyway Its no secret (I think) that Spain has suffered from the german syndrome of neglecting its military. We may have a big fleet of Leos (for some reason) but id bet their readiness level isnt that great. In the summer the minster of defense stated that we would send any to Ukraine due to ther "pitiful state". Then again this could be her just using that as a political excuse but I wouldnt be suprised. Ive seen worse during the 10 years ive been working with the Spanish Armed Forces. Rumorology sort of confirms it- Im sure we could send some number, but not as many as we could if the fleet was operational without neglecting our own needs.

 

https://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20220802/8446090/espana-enviara-tanques-leopard-ucrania-inservibles.html

I wonder what exactly are the Spanish needs for MBTs? At least right now in the coming couple of years. Here in Finland we are debating if UKR would need ours more than we. Poland already decided to send more than half of its tanks over the year and is now eyeing their Leo fleet for UKR.

The question must be financial in nature in there. I hope some sort of Leopard pool funding will be created. I see no reason for Spain not giving at least half of its operational fleet for fair compensation.

Edited January 15, 2023 by The_MonkeyKing

[Battlefront.com]

10 hours ago, JonS said:

The broken-windows theory of economic development has exactly nothing going for it.

Yeah, but you missed the whole point I was making.  The parable shows having an incompetent child break your window does not provide benefit to the shop owner or the community equal to the cost of replacing the window.  True, but that isn't what we're talking about here.  In this situation some little bastard from the neighboring shop came and broke the window.  You did not want this to happen, but it did.  Now you have a choice of buying the replacement glass from a Chinese company on Amazon or to purchase it from a local glass maker.  Buying from the Chinese company provides no benefit to the shop owner beyond the function of the new window, whereas supporting the local glass maker has tangible and intangible benefits to the shop owner in addition to the function of the glass itself.  Well, unless the little bastard is the glass maker's child

This is the theory behind "shop local" and the reasons to oppose "Box stores".  It is sound economic and social practices that I adhere to as much as possible.

Back to this topic, there is a difference between sending CASH to Ukraine and sending them products of the same value made within the US.  The US taxpayer receives the same foreign policy advantages from either, but only the latter does it receive direct economic benefit.  And in both cases it would be better if there was no reason to send the money to Ukraine at all, but Russia's actions obligate it.

Steve

[danfrodo]

This is interesting.  Battle vs the RU forces trying to take Kharkiv city center in first days of the invasion.  The RU guys fought hard but the UKR guys fought harder.  I bet the RU guys were convinced they were gonna be relieved if they just held out.  Hello Arnhem.

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

9 hours ago, JonS said:

I don't doubt the skill, dedication, or professionalism of Ukraine's aviators. But the same is true of everyone's aviators. The Brits don't take 18 months to train Apache crews because they're starting with a bunch numbnuts.

Which makes systems like Apache, Patriot, F-16, etc. vastly different than something like a Marder or even a Bradley.  If you start with a competent AFV/IFV crew it isn't a HUGE leap to get them to operate a Western AFV/IFV because the principles aren't dramatically different.  But what Ukrainian helicopter crew has experience with FLIR, computer directed weapons, and performance characteristics that make their Soviet helicopters look like a Lada to a Porsche?  What Ukrainian helicopter pilot has experience with the tactics necessary to successfully and optimally engage "over the horizon" targets?  The differences are massive enough that short cutting training isn't possible like one can do with other systems. 

Teaching an experienced BTR driver how to use a MRAP is child's play compared to Mi-8 and Apache.

Steve

[The_MonkeyKing]

Koffman:

Good piece by Jack: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/14/tanks-will-help-kyiv-break-deadlock-but-its-ukraine-allies-now-face-a-fork-in-the-road?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1673697791

I find the tank discussion somewhat talismanic, but agree that it represents an important political decision point on whether to take the better kit from current fleets to support UA, as opposed to relying on older equipment in storage. 1/

That said, IFVs are probably more important in what they offer UA overall. ADS, arty, barrels, and ammunition, remain the more significant issues. Tanks are often being used in an indirect fire role, though that could be particularly characteristic of fighting over the winter. 2/

I've been very much on 'team tank' in terms of their utility, and don't subscribe to the recurring post-1973 claims about tanks being obsolete, etc. That said, this war raises two distinct sets of questions: are tanks being used effectively & has maneuver warfare been viable? 3/

Worth raising this to manage expectations on what impact X or Y system will have. It is fair to say that we've not seen much combined arms in this conflict, and attrition has governed this war much more than maneuver. The latter has been possible where it was relatively easy. 4/

Increasingly I see what I think is the right conversation to be had about this being a longer war, and what it will take to sustain it medium-long term. It's already too late for this to be a short war. Winter 2023 is a time for important decision points on the way forward. 5/

 

From the article:

The upshot is that Ukraine’s international partners are approaching a hard fork in the road. For months, they have gifted equipment they have held in storage. Although these donations have been expressed in dollar terms, few of them have incurred heavy financial costs to donors. As donations begin to push into critical fleets and stockpiles, however, Ukraine’s partners face the need to invest in regenerating their capabilities as well as supporting Ukraine. In a challenging financial environment, they have tried to defer this decision. But if they want a Ukrainian victory, then they can defer it no longer. To defer investment is to offer Russia an opportunity to protract the war.

Jack Watling is a senior research fellow for land warfare at the Royal United Services Institute

Edited January 15, 2023 by The_MonkeyKing

[danfrodo]

38 minutes ago, Splinty said:

I know that view very well. I spent a lot of time as a Bradley crewman and dismount.

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? 

[Battlefront.com]

8 hours ago, Eddy said:

Which is what I always thought because 1) it's the Mirror, 2) article says sending AH-64E of which we have the square root of bugger all and 3) it's the Mirror. For non-UK people The Sun, The Mirror, The Star and The Express are really, really not good sources for information

Yup!  Besides the source, it just doesn't make sense for the war's immediate needs.  Now, if I was told that the UK was setting aside 4x Apaches for training Ukrainian crews so that the Ukrainian Airforce of 2024 would have a cadre to train more pilots for operational capabilities in 2025... well, that would be a) realistic and b) something that needs to happen at some point.  The risk of continually pushing off long term for short term means you never get to doing the long term stuff.

Steve

[The_MonkeyKing]

1 minute 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? 

Me commenting as a Finn, we have experience in transitioning from BMP equipment to CV9030 and from T-72 to Leopard 2. Generally everything from operation to maintenance got easier to do with these modern systems than the soviet ones. Example old DOS based computer systems are pretty hard to use compared to modern ones, also switching parts extra is pretty much plug and play.

This is a point our trainers and officers brought up very often in form of recollecting "the old times".

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

”But, but, the Pz2000s!”  

Yeah, and there's another aspect to this analogy that is wrong.  The Ukrainians already have very good artillery practices.  Their primates, as you put it, are already working together in ways that (likely) impress their NATO counterparts.  This is *not* the case with tanks.  The use of them as isolated battering rams maybe necessary due to the overall combat environment, but I'd argue it is likely necessary only because the tanker primates have not learned how to work together.

If we are to give the Ukrainians very expensive, sophisticated weapons we need to make sure they know how to employ them (different from use them) effectively.  Artillery?  They have that and so flood them with artillery and don't worry about employment.  Tanks?  Complex IFVs?  I have legitimate concerns that rushing them to Ukraine is a not a good idea.

Steve

[Zeleban]

15 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Me commenting as a Finn, we have experience in transitioning from BMP equipment to CV9030 and from T-72 to Leopard 2. Generally everything from operation to maintenance got easier to do with these modern systems than the soviet ones. Example old DOS based computer systems are pretty hard to use compared to modern ones, also switching parts extra is pretty much plug and play.

This is a point our trainers and officers brought up very often in form of recollecting "the old times".

In general, modern technology is aimed at facilitating its use and not complicating it. A modern helicopter is equipped with a stability improvement system that drastically simplifies its control. If someone is confused by the operation of weapons control and navigation systems, there is an excellent Apache helicopter simulator, where any more or less persistent person can figure it out: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/ru/shop/modules/ah-64d/

Let me remind you that the study of such a complex system as HIMARS take our military several months.

Edited January 15, 2023 by Zeleban

[Huba]

23 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Which makes systems like Apache, Patriot, F-16, etc. vastly different than something like a Marder or even a Bradley.  If you start with a competent AFV/IFV crew it isn't a HUGE leap to get them to operate a Western AFV/IFV because the principles aren't dramatically different.  But what Ukrainian helicopter crew has experience with FLIR, computer directed weapons, and performance characteristics that make their Soviet helicopters look like a Lada to a Porsche?  What Ukrainian helicopter pilot has experience with the tactics necessary to successfully and optimally engage "over the horizon" targets?  The differences are massive enough that short cutting training isn't possible like one can do with other systems. 

Teaching an experienced BTR driver how to use a MRAP is child's play compared to Mi-8 and Apache.

Steve

I'd think that F-16 would actually be easier to train for if your goal is to use it as a stand-off weapons launch platform and cruise missile hunter, not caring much about SEAD or fighting for air superiority. OTOH it's hard to see the reason to have Apache reduced to mobile MLRS the way most helicopters operate in this conflict.

[FancyCat]

A reminder Russia has little regard for International Humanitarian Law.

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Let me remind you that the study of such a complex system as HIMARS did not take our military several months.

Exactly the point I just made   Ukraine's artillery handling is perhaps better than NATOs in some ways.  Handing HIMARS to an experienced Ukrainian artillery unit is like handing a better rifle to an experienced rifleman.  Not a big leap.

HIMARS also has a huge logistics advantage.  It is not used in the worst of the battlefield spaces, it is used well to the rear.  If something goes wrong, like a flat tire or engine problem, the chances are that it can be taken care of without potential loss of the vehicle to enemy fire.  These sorts of practical issues are very different for an Apache or an Abrams.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, Huba said:

I'd think that F-16 would actually be easier to train for if your goal is to use it as a stand-off weapons launch platform and cruise missile hunter, not caring much about SEAD or fighting for air superiority. OTOH it's hard to see the reason to have Apache reduced to mobile MLRS the way most helicopters operate in this conflict.

Yup, again part of my point about employment (see post I just made about HIMARS).  I also suspect the leap between a SU-27 to a F-16 is far less difficult than a Mi-24 to Apache.

Steve