How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Haiduk]

1 hour ago, Zeleban said:

An interesting video of the use of the MT-12 "Rapier" gun by Ukrainian marines. The HEAT shells for this gun have a bright red tracer for correcting shooting. Looks very impressive

This is next part of video with 7 destroyed BMPs near Vodiane. One our soldier in twitter wrote Russians lost there 14 BMP and 2 tanks. Looks like he was right. 

Edited January 25, 2023 by Haiduk

[Lethaface]

2 hours ago, Huba said:

The immediate value of the major Western AFVs is in signalling: we are ready to, with time, re-arm UA with our equipment, the supply will not dry up and the quality will go up, not down.
Then starting to build the logistic chains, preparing the support base, expertise on handling and maintaining all the vehicles if started now, will start to bring effects after a lot of time, so starting ASAP is quite crucial.

And of course it doesn't look like anybody intends to stop bringing in the ex-Soviet equipment, but the reserves of that are melting fast - adding all that can be found in Europe there are maybe 700 tanks, a lot of these beyond repair. Some more can probably be obtained in some less obvious places like Africa, but at the end this is a finite resource that has been severely thinned out already. Supply of things like ammunition, engines and gun barrels is probably an even larger bottleneck, everything outside Russia and Ukraine are just boutique manufactures.

All of that is largely applicable to IFVs too. Given that UA is also suffering losses that can be counted in hundreds, I think they will exhaust all the available reserves of ex-Soviet AFVs in 2023 anyway. In this context starting to re-arm them now is an not so usual, but very commendable example of foresight. The added element of psychological pressure on RU is not to sneeze at either.

 

NATO/EU/Europe creating a long term vision on Defense post 2022 invasion of Ukraine is a good thing. I think we all agree on that. I think we also all agree on that somewhere along the run Ukraine will have to make a switch to NATO/Western stuff around the board. What / when / how exactly is another question.

For example I don't see Ukraine burning through it's current tanks in 2023 at the 'current' rate, where's the arguments for that? If there are, like you say, another ~700 T-type tanks which could be added to what they already have in service: that's no small pocket change. That's more than they lost so far AFAIK. But less than what they still have. And there's certainly not 700 Leo2s available for Ukraine in 2023, I doubt 2024.

So I still don't get all the fuss to rush about some dozen OLD Leo2A4s like it will enable a Ukraine armored fist breakthrough in a couple of months. There is also such a thing as opportunity cost. 
The signaling you mention can be done in many ways, not only by infighting among allies supporting Ukraine ;-). Artillery does great signaling. Building a consortium to supply UKR with a new fleet of AFVs for the future signals fine as well. That would be a good thing and pressuring countries to join the consortium would be effort well spend. Not dust off some olde tanks from the warehouse and cross off the 'support ukraine with heavy AFVs' prestation indicator checkmark.

Demonstrations about releasing the leopards and creating lists of countries who haven't donated (not saying that you are doing that, but that's the hype which is going on), tensions between countries; all for a few old western tanks. That's not the sort of support which is going to help Ukraine help win the war sooner imo.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Lethaface

[kevinkin]

18 minutes ago, dan/california said:

they are holding their armor as an emergency reserve

I tend to think this is what we will see in the short term at least. The UA probably presented NATO will a board brush plan on how the new stuff will be used in order to get the AFVs. Will they keep the new NATO equipment together and form new units or dole it out to existing formations?  Given the lack of mobility caused by a damaged battlefield, the new armor might be best used if the RA breaks clear of no-man's land and then becomes nice targets to coral into kill zones by formations with good freedom of movement. 

Edited January 25, 2023 by kevinkin

[Vet 0369]

45 minutes ago, NamEndedAllen said:

This entire “Tanks: Yes or No” debate here and in the public space has been enormously frustrating, not least because it usually clouds the larger question.  It too often takes on just that kind of rigid un illuminating yes/no posture, even here. And too often, twisting what is said into an extreme positions. @The_Capt and Steve among others have been clear about what are more crucial needs for the AFU than tanks. OTOH, most people here have not insisted Western tanks will sweep into Moscow and crush Putin into messy blood pudding.

But whether here or in the noisy public debates and finger pointing, There is a better discussion hidden by it all. Why haven’t the political and military leadership at the very least in the USA clearly and forcefully laid out their vision for the Big Picture of re-arming the AFU over time? Instead of engaging in micro tennis match type back and forth volleys about specific weapons? 

Explain to the public - and pointedly to Russia - that not only is the West committed to ensuring Ukraine’s territorial integrity, and that it will not permit Russia to succeed in its illegal invasions of sovereign nations. But that the West’s delivery of weapons is designed to create a new AFU equipped to withstand anything Russia can throw at it. That the vision that our tax dollars are funding is much much more than this month’s big shopping cart of weapons and munitions. Most people’s eyes glaze over as soon as they see those lengthy lists littered with arcane acronyms and obscure model numbers. Uunlike our forum members, they just see dollar signs. Billions and billions of them. Tell them there is a mighty PLAN! Tell them that it takes time to build a modernized military, that the Ukrainians are bravely defending their homeland with today’s tranche, but that this will be a long war against the worst evil since Hitler’s SS raped its way across Europe etc etc. Therefore we will be building up Ukraine progressively while it is in the fights for its very survival. Over time, and as training and planning takes place, tanks, planes and ships will be delivered. These will not be thrown thoughtlessly into the inferno and lost! They will roll out inexorably over time so as to be best employed in Ukraine’s, and arguably Europe’s survival and victory over this heinous attack that threatens all of us who stand for freedom.

Or something like that! Because the public doesn’t get inspired by long lists of acronyms. Show them and Russia the big picture, emphasize that there is the plan is unfolding. Stop batting back and forth for months on end about this tank or that! 

Because if the explanations take longer than a 30 second sound bite, or it doesn’t fit the viewer’s political philosophy, then the majority of viewers/readers/listeners just go on to something more appealing to them. Up until the early 1970s, I’d venture to say that most males, at least in the U.S, had at least a smattering of military tactics, and the knowledge that if you provided your opponent with an idea of what you were going to do, that opponent would be much better able to “kick the crap” out of you. If I’m not mistaken, the U.S. military and politicians made a point of publicly stating that it wasn’t going to supply South Korea with heavy tanks because the Korean terrain wouldn’t support their use. In fact the real reason was that they were afraid Pak would invade the North.. The result was when the North invaded, they led the invasion with heavy T-34s that simply rolled over the U.S. light and medium tanks, and the 2.5 inch bazookas just bounced off the T-34s. 
 

that is the main reason that you don’t declare your intentions no matter how many of the public and Media want to satisfy their curiosity.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Vet 0369
Typo

[chrisl]

10 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

It's possible, but the question is how much tech you want to put into a drone only to kill one or two enemy soldiers inside a dugout, when you could hit many more on the cheap outside.

When it’s mass produced it’s cheap per unit. And I already have non-military applications for the navigation inside tunnels part.

[Haiduk]

One more video of MT-12 Rapira work from 28th mech.brigade, Bakhmut area. BMP and infantry unit wiped out in the night. I wonder how Rapira could fire at the night.... It's possibly should be a miracle to find old working Soviet 1PN53 NV sight for this gun (1st Gen. of EOP), which can see on 1500 m

 

[Haiduk]

Video of shooting "Terminator" was geolocated in 2 km from southern town limit of Kreminna

Belonging of destroyed BMPs in the video still discussed, because one of them has O marking on the front hull, but enough faded out. Either this Russian losses, which Russian clained as Ukrianian, or this was recently captured Russian BMP and the O sign wasn't properly erased 

[Zeleban]

14 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

One more video of MT-12 Rapira work from 28th mech.brigade, Bakhmut area. BMP and infantry unit wiped out in the night. I wonder how Rapira could fire at the night.... It's possibly should be a miracle to find old working Soviet 1PN53 NV sight for this gun (1st Gen. of EOP), which can see on 1500 m

 

 

Not so rare 

This is a 1A31 "RUTA" radar sight. This system could be used during the day or night and in all weather conditions including heavy rain, fog and in a smoke-obscured battle environment. The sight was designed to automatically detect targets from a range of over 3,500 meters, and detect a moving target within 3 seconds with a probability of 80%. The rubber sleeve next to the fighter's shoulder is to protect the radar screen from glare like on old planes

Edited January 25, 2023 by Zeleban

[sburke]

2 hours ago, DesertFox said:

 

 

can we expect to see him in drag soon as well?

[Beleg85]

More from Vodyane, this time drones bombing infantry; indeed looks like non-small defeat:

 

[NamEndedAllen]

Possibly of interest with regard to recent announcements by Ukrainian officials saying they had determined which plane Ukraine will acquire in the future during a recent trip to the USA:
 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/first-block-70-f-16-has-flown-from-lockheeds-new-south-carolina-plant

”Of those 128 Block 70/72 F-16s, 16 of them have been ordered by Bahrain, including the aircraft that flew today. Once completed, the Bahraini F-16 will first be handed over to the U.S. government sometime this quarter, then undergo flight testing at Edward’s Air Force Base, and then be delivered to the customer. 

The remaining Block 70/72 F-16s in Lockheed Martin’s backlog are set to fulfill orders for Slovakia, Bulgaria, Taiwan, and an additional unspecified customer, Lockheed Martin said. “

[Zeleban]

 

[Huba]

41 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

NATO/EU/Europe creating a long term vision on Defense post 2022 invasion of Ukraine is a good thing. I think we all agree on that. I think we also all agree on that somewhere along the run Ukraine will have to make a switch to NATO/Western stuff around the board. What / when / how exactly is another question.

For example I don't see Ukraine burning through it's current tanks in 2023 at the 'current' rate, where's the arguments for that? If there are, like you say, another ~700 T-type tanks which could be added to what they already have in service: that's no small pocket change. That's more than they lost so far AFAIK. But less than what they still have. And there's certainly not 700 Leo2s available for Ukraine in 2023, I doubt 2024.

So I still don't get all the fuss to rush about some dozen OLD Leo2A4s like it will enable a Ukraine armored fist breakthrough in a couple of months. There is also such a thing as opportunity cost. 
The signaling you mention can be done in many ways, not only by infighting among allies supporting Ukraine ;-). Artillery does great signaling. Building a consortium to supply UKR with a new fleet of AFVs for the future signals fine as well. That would be a good thing and pressuring countries to join the consortium would be effort well spend. Not dust off some olde tanks from the warehouse and cross off the 'support ukraine with heavy AFVs' prestation indicator checkmark.

Demonstrations about releasing the leopards and creating lists of countries who haven't donated (not saying that you are doing that, but that's the hype which is going on), tensions between countries; all for a few old western tanks. That's not the sort of support which is going to help Ukraine help win the war sooner imo.

I think we are agreeing on the most things here actually, so let me just answer to some of the points:

According to Oryx UA lost 450 tanks so far (again, we could and perhaps should be speaking about other AFVs here as well, the tank is just a representative here). A safe assumption is to add at least 30% unaccounted by the available sources, and the entirety of available reserves is more or equal to that. And mind that 700 I mentioned includes for example the Cypriot T80U, that would have to be swapped for something Western, thus decreasing availability of Leo2 for UA. Might be worth it, but the total tally looks different cause of that. Or Albanian tanks that are not that likely, same for Croatian or Bulgarian. Or the hulks that only exist in CFE reports.This is the highest theoretical number I managed to come up with.
What we don't know is how sustainable the existing fleet really is. Poland, the by far bigger operator and donor, is not producing engines and barrels for T-types since 15 years or so, the only manufacturers in Europe that I know of being Czechs and Slovaks, perhaps also Serbs who won't contribute. We don't know what the supply situation of these essential components is, but IMO there's a lot of reasons to worry here.
UA managed to patch up it's forces this year to a large degree thanks to captured vehicles. I seriously doubt that this opportunity will present itself again this year.
Now for the losses part. Whatever we say about russians sucking, they ought to suck less at least tactically. Ukrainians are unlikely to again be able to achieve substantial numerical superiority going forward. All the analysts are rather gloomy too, basically everyone expects this year to be more, not less bloody. 
Given all of that, I expect the attrition of UA equipment (and everything else except maybe SAMs) to be rather higher than lower than during 2023.
What the situation will be 12 months from now is hard to really foresee at this moment (talk about truisms). I don't believe in 700 Leo in January 2024 either. But 700 Leo2 + Leo1 + M1, with an odd Challenger or Leclerc? That is much more believable. And thanks to rushing it now, we have a lot of time to actually make it work. I of course agree that rushing the ungodly mix of Leo2 types to the front in April would be silly (unless the situation is that dire...), but the whole point of sending the Leo2 now would be to allow training, build some unit cohesion and such. Good example are UA units built from initial Polish donations - we send the equipment in April - May, and units debuted sometimes in Septemper,  and the PT91 not to this day. I think Leo2 and M1 equipped units would respectively follow similar paths.

Can't disagree about the show of disunity not being to our favor - but IMO it was bound to happen anyway, and at the moment it's impact is far less significant if these vehicles were needed really bloody now. And we have a whole year to patch the aggravations up. IMO it was definitely worth it, I think Biden himself thinks so too, given that he apparently overruled Pentagon on this.

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

2 hours ago, NamEndedAllen said:

Will be interesting to see just WHICH M1s are sent, from which source and batch, and how long it takes to get them ready:

My guess is they will be taken from the Abrams tanks slotted for Poland. The question is will they be new-built M1A2s or refurbished M1A1s? Poland has both on order.

[Butschi]

Re: the tank debate. We know/assume Ukraine still has a lot of tanks around. We also assume that Russia still has a sizeable tank fleet. The fact that we don't see large scale mechanized maneuver warfare on either side and few tank on tank battles indicates that the question whether a Leopard 2 fares better against the remaining Russian tanks than, say, a T-72 then is just the wrong question. I think we know for a fact that Russian tanks mostly die or died to ATGMs. The same is probably true for UA tanks. If true, the real question to ask would be: How much better does a Leopard 2 fare against Russian ATGMs than the current UA tanks? If the answer is "not at all" then Leopards will not be a game changer, only a (long term) replacement Soviet made tanks.

[Huba]

2 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

My guess is they will be taken from the Abrams tanks slotted for Poland. The question is will they be new-built M1A2s or refurbished M1A1s? Poland has both on order.

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). 

5 minutes ago, Butschi said:

If true, the real question to ask would be: How much better does a Leopard 2 fare against Russian ATGMs than the current UA tanks? If the answer is "not at all" then Leopards will not be a game changer, only a (long term) replacement Soviet made tanks.

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.

[Eddy]

11 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

My guess is they will be taken from the Abrams tanks slotted for Poland. The question is will they be new-built M1A2s or refurbished M1A1s? Poland has both on order.

Defence Editor of The Economist tweets

 

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, Butschi said:

Re: the tank debate. We know/assume Ukraine still has a lot of tanks around. We also assume that Russia still has a sizeable tank fleet. The fact that we don't see large scale mechanized maneuver warfare on either side and few tank on tank battles indicates that the question whether a Leopard 2 fares better against the remaining Russian tanks than, say, a T-72 then is just the wrong question. I think we know for a fact that Russian tanks mostly die or died to ATGMs. The same is probably true for UA tanks. If true, the real question to ask would be: How much better does a Leopard 2 fare against Russian ATGMs than the current UA tanks? If the answer is "not at all" then Leopards will not be a game changer, only a (long term) replacement Soviet made tanks.

We COULD put or big boy pants on a give the Ukrainians tanks with the latest Trophy derivative APS. From a purely military standpoint it would be awfully good to really test those systems against a minimally competent threat before go all in on them as  a war winning weapon.  The Russian issue isn't that they don't understand how the systems work. It is that they can't make the machines to make the machines to MAKE the systems. Some broken bits of the final product are not that helpful from a reverse engineering standpoint when that is your problem.

It still doesn't solve mines and artillery, but it all about reducing the number of losses it takes to crack the outer shell just enough. They would be VASTLY helpful against hasty defenses if Ukraine could achieve a real breakthrough and get a real exploitation phase going.

[Beleg85]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/01/25/germany-leopard-tanks-abrams-ukraine/

Article summing up tank debate- they claim that Abrams will not arrive in months if not years, and is long-term pledge.

Also debates between US and Germany were very heated and resistance from Scholz very real up to last moments, if anyone thinks they were staged and long-planned.

 

Rheznikov (as well as our MoD) today also announced there will be more good news coming...interesting.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Beleg85

[Bulletpoint]

3 minutes ago, dan/california said:

They would be VASTLY helpful against hasty defenses if Ukraine could achieve a real breakthrough and get a real exploitation phase going.

By the time the tanks reach Ukraine there won't be any hasty Russian defences. They have been digging in for a long time now.

[Seedorf81]

https://qr.ae/pvsoE6

"Sweden didn't go for the Abrams because of it's poor performance in mud".

Anyone knows if this is true? Is the Abrams bad in current Ukraine muddy terrain?

That would be a bit of a bummer, wouldn't it?

 

[Lethaface]

10 minutes ago, Huba said:

I think we are agreeing on the most things here actually, so let me just answer to some of the points:

According to Oryx UA lost 450 tanks so far (again, we could and perhaps should be speaking about other AFVs here as well, the tank is just a representative here). A safe assumption is to add at least 30% unaccounted by the available sources, and the entirety of available reserves is more or equal to that. And mind that 700 I mentioned includes for example the Cypriot T80U, that would have to be swapped for something Western, thus decreasing availability of Leo2 for UA. Might be worth it, but the total tally looks different cause of that. Or Albanian tanks that are not that likely, same for Croatian or Bulgarian. Or the hulks that only exist in CFE reports.This is the highest theoretical number I managed to come up with.
What we don't know is how sustainable the existing fleet really is. Poland, the by far bigger operator and donor, is not producing engines and barrels for T-types since 15 years or so, the only manufacturers in Europe that I know of being Czechs and Slovaks, perhaps also Serbs who won't contribute. We don't know what the supply situation of these essential components is, but IMO there's a lot of reasons to worry here.
UA managed to patch up it's forces this year to a large degree thanks to captured vehicles. I seriously doubt that this opportunity will present itself again this year.
Now for the losses part. Whatever we say about russians sucking, they ought to suck less at least tactically. Ukrainians are unlikely to again be able to achieve substantial numerical superiority going forward. All the analysts are rather gloomy too, basically everyone expects this year to be more, not less bloody. 
Given all of that, I expect the attrition of UA equipment (and everything else except maybe SAMs) to be rather higher than lower than during 2023.
What the situation will be 12 months from now is hard to really foresee at this moment (talk about truisms). I don't believe in 700 Leo in January 2024 either. But 700 Leo2 + Leo1 + M1, with an odd Challenger or Leclerc? That is much more believable. And thanks to rushing it now, we have a lot of time to actually make it work. I of course agree that rushing the ungodly mix of Leo2 types to the front in April would be silly (unless the situation is that dire...), but the whole point of sending the Leo2 now would be to allow training, build some unit cohesion and such. Good example are UA units built from initial Polish donations - we send the equipment in April - May, and units debuted sometimes in Septemper,  and the PT91 not to this day. I think Leo2 and M1 equipped units would respectively follow similar paths.

Can't disagree about the show of disunity not being to our favor - but IMO it was bound to happen anyway, and at the moment it's impact is far less significant if these vehicles were needed really bloody now. And we have a whole year to patch the aggravations up. IMO it was definitely worth it, I think Biden himself thinks so too, given that he apparently overruled Pentagon on this.

 

Yes we are all on the same side! 
Anyway it seems most UKR tank losses where in the beginning of the war, when there were also a lot captured. At the moment they mostly use them as mobile fire support. From my pov they have plenty for those tasks and whatever tank they have will do fine on that. They should have enough for large combined arms operations with T-type tanks, but we don't see that happening.
There are also still quite a number of those tanks still to be delivered to Ukraine (among which Czech upgrades). We can also cooperate invest in Czech/others industry to make sure the capability to service engines/barrels etc doesn't disappear during the war. To be honest that seems like a wise thing to do, until Ukraine/others have switched over which will take a couple of years for sure!

The fact that we didn't see PT-91 and many of the other tanks send in battle yet, is one indication that the energy spend with the Leopard debate could have been better used on things we do see in battle often.
Himars missiles, artillery, etc. IFVs are also much more often featured. And one could say that the capability gap between a BMP-1/2  vs a Bradley or CV90 is much larger than the gap between a Leo2 vs a T-72/64. Especially if they get used for fire support mainly.
But for IFVs we also have a mix of Marders/Bradleys/CV90. Which are all much more complex to service and maintain compared to some m113 variant. At least the numbers of those were around 50 per type. 

Anyway I hope we are now closer to a 'consortium' working on streamlining defense commitments including support for Ukraine. Tanks, IFVs, planes, artillery, etc. 
My 'frustration' with this whole thing was more that it was, at least in my eyes, a lot of fuss about not so much bang for your buck. Which is in my allergic zone :D
If the fuss would have been about a consortium and end result is long term support including logistics, manufacturing, training, finance, (the whole thing), than I would have supported it.
 don't care about politicians feelings getting hurt, that's suits them well/part of the job. But the resulting friction is often a reason that cooperation will become less 'fruitful' in the future and might go further then just politicians with hurt feelings. 

I felt it was ironic Poland pledged 14(!) Leo2A4, for which they seek reimbursement from EU, after talking so much about Germany. Will we now see Scholz talking daily about when Poland is going to send the remaining PT-91?  He can reuse many of the arguments that were arranged against him/Germany.

Joking aside, it certainly wasn't only Poland and I don't think Scholz is an good example for anything basically, but this episode had some touch of the old EU bickering about nothing much again, at least in my optics. Which is not a good development imo. 
Let's hope I'm too pessimistic and all have now found each other again in jointly delivering all kinds of AFVs to Ukraine. Maybe it can work therapeutic.

 

[Splinty]

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. 

[DesertFox]

13 minutes ago, Seedorf81 said:

https://qr.ae/pvsoE6

"Sweden didn't go for the Abrams because of it's poor performance in mud".

Anyone knows if this is true? Is the Abrams bad in current Ukraine muddy terrain?

That would be a bit of a bummer, wouldn't it?

 

Thats bull****. M1 Abrams is as good or bad in mud as the Leo 2 is. We had numerous Leopards stuck in mud (Bergen Hohne and Munster) as well. Not getting stuck is primarily dependant on driver skill.

On this "optimized for open desert" nonsense, I wont comment.

Do a google on "leopard 2 stuck in mud" and you find numerous pics

Edited January 25, 2023 by DesertFox

[OldSarge]

16 minutes ago, Seedorf81 said:

https://qr.ae/pvsoE6

"Sweden didn't go for the Abrams because of it's poor performance in mud".

Anyone knows if this is true? Is the Abrams bad in current Ukraine muddy terrain?

That would be a bit of a bummer, wouldn't it?

 

Just about the same as any other tracked vehicle.