How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Russian defense analyst Ruslan Pukhov on western tanks.

• Delivery of Abrams tanks could seriously aggravate the situation at the front for Russian forces because even export variants of the M1A2 SEP V2 is significantly better than existing Russian tanks in serial production.
• This doesn't include T-90M, which aren't in serial production. He says Russian tanks are using old Soviet-era ammunition, which is sufficient against T-64, T-72, and T-80 tanks at short ranges, but NATO tanks could engage them at longer distances, putting them at a disadvantage.
• He also says that Russia lacks a 3rd generation ATGM like the Javelin, and that Russian forces don't have enough Kornets. Instead, older Konkurs and Fagot ATGMs are the bulk of Russia's ATGMs.
• He says that 30-50 tanks is unlikely to affect the situation, but 200-300 could be a significant operational factor. He says much will depend on Russian producers of anti-tank systems.

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1618380131214688261

 

[Lethaface]

1 hour ago, Huba said:

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.

AFAIK the upgraded T-type tanks all feature improvements in those area's. Leo2A4 might not even be much of an improvement in some cases. 

[dan/california]

27 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?

 

Yeah, but Ukraine dries out in summer in a way Sweden doesn't. And when it is muddy in Ukraine, NOTHING works apparently. 

Edited January 25, 2023 by dan/california

[FancyCat]

 

[Huba]

16 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

AFAIK the upgraded T-type tanks all feature improvements in those area's. Leo2A4 might not even be much of an improvement in some cases. 

Right, T-90M is even quite superior - but not superior to A6. And the trend will be, in overall, towards lower and lower quality of RU equipment in this regard. Basic T-62M? Some photos from Uralwagonzawod showed that refurbished T-72B3 are being equipped with older generation IIR, as the previous Western one is not available. I'd say that the trend going forward is definitely on UA side, properties of particular vehicles notwithstanding.

Edit:

Quite graphic video, so be warned, but a rather rare example of what havoc can one of these larger drones wreak upon immobilized troops in the open:

 

Edited January 25, 2023 by Huba

[Lethaface]

1 minute ago, Huba said:

Right, T-90M is even quite superior - but not superior to A6. And the trend will be, in overall, towards lower and lower quality of RU equipment in this regard. Basic T-62M? Some photos from Uralwagonzawod showed that refurbished T-72B3 are being equipped with older generation IIR, as the previous Western one is not available. I'd say that the trend going forward is definitely on UA side, properties of particular vehicles notwithstanding.

Indeed. Plus how many T-90M are even deployed / deployable in Ukraine?

Also all Russian tanks are vulnerable to Javelin and other ATGMs Ukraine has. Does Kontakt-5 ERA reliably stop Stugna-P, or other tandem HEAT ATGMs with ~550+ mm RHA penetration? (because IIRC that's the penetration needed to go through T-72 turret after ERA, from T-72M1).

And artillery indeed :)

[Huba]

15 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Indeed. Plus how many T-90M are even deployed / deployable in Ukraine?

Also all Russian tanks are vulnerable to Javelin and other ATGMs Ukraine has. Does Kontakt-5 ERA reliably stop Stugna-P, or other tandem HEAT ATGMs with ~550+ mm RHA penetration? (because IIRC that's the penetration needed to go through T-72 turret after ERA, from T-72M1).

And artillery indeed :)

Also (but this is just pure wishful thinking, tough I think with some merit) if we're talking about 2024, I like @dan/california idea of Trophy/ whatever hard-kill APS might be available. Might be worth it if only to gather the practical experience. 

Edit: And a meme to end the day with:

Edited January 25, 2023 by Huba

[Lethaface]

Just now, Huba said:

Also (but this is just pure wishful thinking, tough I think with some merit) if we're talking about 2024, I like @dan/california idea of Trophy/ whatever hard-kill APS might be available. Might be worth it if only to gather the practical experience. 

I think Israel had good practical experience with it, which should be available on internet as I remember reading about it years ago. 

Anyway for whatever will be the 'new' AFVs/IFVs Ukraine (or any country for that matter) is going to acquire in the longer run, APS and other protection systems will or should certainly be a consideration. Including protection against top attack munitions.

 

[Beleg85]

5 hours ago, dan/california said:

The Israelis have been a great disappointment throughout the Ukraine situation. Although some corners of the internet are convinced they are doing more than they are saying. A guided 120mm mortar round makes so much sense you would think that there would be a dozen different kinds in common usage, but it seems to have repeatedly been that next thing on the list that didn't get bought. 

When comes to material and formally political side- yes, they are disappointment; however, being US ally simply does not allow to be neutral in crysis like that. To put it bluntly- there are very valid rumours Israeli officers are here hanging around military bases (and perhaps in Ukraine) semi-permanently and helping with "some" stuff. I would vouche Electronic Warfare, AA and intelligence- they wouldn't miss a conflict where so many elements of future warfare are forging. Somehow we don't hear anymore about those Iranian instructors on Russian side...

Plus Bibi Natanjahu may talk whatever he wants, but there are more than 100k+ Ukrainian Jews, many of them taking part in the conflict, that have extensive contacts with Israel. They can't leave them just like that.

Edited January 26, 2023 by Beleg85

[Shady_Side]

I have I dumb question that I know some of you guys on here will have the answer to. The time to train Ukrainian tank crews on new western tanks seems extremely long to me. Assuming they are not picking troops out of boot camp, they will be starting with crews that already know the fundamentals of armored combat. Probably better than the trainers do. Been a long time since desert storm after all. 

The only real life thing I can think to compare it to is something like this. My first care a Ford Escort. Every car or truck I have had since then has been more modern, and more capable, and did take a little bit of time to adjust to but not that much. Maybe a better example is I have operated all different kinds of heavy equipment some bigger and newer with lots of upgrades and some old bangers that would take half a morning to get started. Point is a lot of the fundaments are basically the same and sure I need a little bit of time to adjust but not long.

I can even understand a longer time period need to train for the properly maintain them. But as far has the actual driving on a battlefield and shooting the gun with a crew that already know and understand their tactical role. Why the long training period?

So what am I missing guys??

 

 

 

[Gpig]

I suspect the long training period has more to do with how to fight the tanks in a troop/squadron/battalion level engagement. I think some others more knowledgeable than myself have said previously, these Western tanks might be a bit more capable in certain comparables, but individually, they are still just a tank. It is the Western way of fighting with these tanks as part of an integrated combined arms force that makes them particularly nasty for the opposition (and explains the longer training period).

Using the car-as-tank analogy, now imagine the tank as a grand prix race car. Much more training time required to operate on the racetrack with all the other cars (not to mention the support team and logistics to help make them successful)

Edited January 26, 2023 by Gpig

[The_Capt]

51 minutes ago, Shady_Side said:

I have I dumb question that I know some of you guys on here will have the answer to. The time to train Ukrainian tank crews on new western tanks seems extremely long to me. Assuming they are not picking troops out of boot camp, they will be starting with crews that already know the fundamentals of armored combat. Probably better than the trainers do. Been a long time since desert storm after all. 

The only real life thing I can think to compare it to is something like this. My first care a Ford Escort. Every car or truck I have had since then has been more modern, and more capable, and did take a little bit of time to adjust to but not that much. Maybe a better example is I have operated all different kinds of heavy equipment some bigger and newer with lots of upgrades and some old bangers that would take half a morning to get started. Point is a lot of the fundaments are basically the same and sure I need a little bit of time to adjust but not long.

I can even understand a longer time period need to train for the properly maintain them. But as far has the actual driving on a battlefield and shooting the gun with a crew that already know and understand their tactical role. Why the long training period?

So what am I missing guys??

 

 

 

Ok, well just skimming the wavetops here…going from 3 crewmen to 4 is the first real hurdle. Totally different internal systems so maintenance and operation is going to be different.  Different capabilities which will drive how the crew will fight the vehicle (hell they will likely have to learn to live in it first).  No point in getting a new platform if they intend to fight it like their current fleets.  For example western tanks reverse much faster, which drives an entirely different tactical fire and movement procedures.  Different fire control systems and gun behaviour (range, penetration etc), western systems are more point and click but then there is the battlefield comms and info sharing suites.  Ammo handling, damage control and recovery are also different.  

And then you get into specialized drills like minefield breaching, water crossing and snorkelling, all different from Soviet equipment.  In some ways when it comes to crew training I expect that untrained crews are going to be easier to train because they do not have to unlearn the old systems first.

Also western tanks are designed to be fought in platoons of 4, not sure if the UA does the same or fight Soviet style in platoons of 3.  This opens up collective training with just the tanks, based on numbers we are talking up to Company as a minimum.  Training a company to march, shake out, deploy, fight, consolidate and sustain through all phases (offence, defence and withdrawal) is going to take some time as again these are fundamentally different systems.  I expect if UA crews treat them like the Soviet stuff these western tanks will be broken pretty quickly.  Western systems take a lot more TLC.  And then once you do all that, unless you want to relegate the armor to being on its own, you then have to move up to combined arms training and integrate infantry, artillery and engineers - rinse and repeat on the phases of warfare.   Most of these units are going to be in various types of equipment, likely some Soviet and western mixes which is going to get a little weird. You have to do all this without breaking your new tanks or getting people hurt.

And then there is the logistics train.  All the maintainers, recovery folks and specialists that the UA do not have and western nations are not going to put in country.  And then all that has to learn to keep up with the new combat teams, that should not be moving like the current UA armor (see: indirect fire) or what was the point?  So now specialized logistics trains are going to need to learn to keep up with stuff like break through.

Oh and before anyone brings it up, this is crash course speed.  Because the UA will be cutting corners and accepting risk, not too much or see Broken Tanks.  So 6 months is at break neck speed.  This is not moving to a slightly more modern vehicle.  This is a completely new weapon system that takes 4 people to operate it.  Its inherent capabilities and quirks drive how it is employed at basic levels. Upscaling those change how the units that employ these vehicles are organized and operate - in a contact sport where you do not get many second chances. 

 

[NamEndedAllen]

3 hours ago, Lethaface said:

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.

This.

NATO itself has a lot invested in planning and coordinating for integrating militaries. I’d expect the various Allies to draw upon at least some of this and focusing on what you’ve said. At least by a few months ago, as winter was approaching. Instead of squabbling about which tanks etc.

[Vet 0369]

19 minutes ago, NamEndedAllen said:

This.

NATO itself has a lot invested in planning and coordinating for integrating militaries. I’d expect the various Allies to draw upon at least some of this and focusing on what you’ve said. At least by a few months ago, as winter was approaching. Instead of squabbling about which tanks etc.

And, why do you assume they haven’t started some time ago? Again, that type of info isn’t something a military puts out for public information. Unless of  course, you want to scare the crap out of Russia and cause them to do something hasty or not completely thought through.

[Vanir Ausf B]

4 hours ago, dan/california said:

We COULD put or big boy pants on a give the Ukrainians tanks with the latest Trophy derivative APS.

 

2 hours ago, Huba said:

Also (but this is just pure wishful thinking, tough I think with some merit) if we're talking about 2024, I like @dan/california idea of Trophy/ whatever hard-kill APS might be available. Might be worth it if only to gather the practical experience.

I'd love to see how much of a difference Trophy could make in a conflict like this, but even if the US or Germany were willing it's unlikely Israel would approve the transfer.

[JonS]

1 hour ago, Shady_Side said:

Why the long training period?

Just learning to operate a modern, digital, encrypted radio is a weeks long process. And that's for trained signallers who already know how to talk to each other on a military network (if they don't add a few more weeks just for that. Speaking on a mil network is NOT like talking to your mates on a cellphone)

The radio is a tiny - but critical! - part of a tank. There are many other equally complex elements.

[Battlefront.com]

8 minutes ago, JonS said:

Just learning to operate a modern, digital, encrypted radio is a weeks long process. And that's for trained signallers who already know how to talk to each other on a military network (if they don't add a few more weeks just for that. Speaking on a mil network is NOT like talking to your mates on a cellphone)

The radio is a tiny - but critical! - part of a tank. There are many other equally complex elements.

And then they have to be so good at it that they can do it while doing a bunch of other things simultaneously while under fire.  It's absolutely mind boggling what goes on in that big tin can on tracks.

Steve

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

And then they have to be so good at it that they can do it while doing a bunch of other things simultaneously while under fire.  It's absolutely mind boggling what goes on in that big tin can on tracks.

Steve

And of course there is training people up to a level of proficiency that they do it on zero sleep while someone is trying to kill them part.  And then training them to not kill each other by accident. And kill the other guys well in a disciplined manner.  A lot of this is pure muscle memory which does not immediately translate from one platform to the next.  Last thing you want is a crewman to react as if they are in a T72 while in a western tank.

[dan/california]

41 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

And of course there is training people up to a level of proficiency that they do it on zero sleep while someone is trying to kill them part.  And then training them to not kill each other by accident. And kill the other guys well in a disciplined manner.  A lot of this is pure muscle memory which does not immediately translate from one platform to the next.  Last thing you want is a crewman to react as if they are in a T72 while in a western tank.

All of this applies to fighter jets as well, except you have to be able to do it right the first time upside down while pulling seven Gs.

Edited January 26, 2023 by dan/california

[dan/california]

Russian casualties in this attack on Vuhledar are rather high. Or they are getting hammered somewhere else even harder than I thought.

[cesmonkey]

On the subject of the limited capacity of the pipeline to assist Ukraine, should we be bringing Ukrainian soldiers to more countries for training besides Poland, the UK, and Germany? Is there enough capacity and training space in these three countries, or should we consider places with bigger spaces and more training infrastructure like the US?

[kevinkin]

https://thehill.com/homenews/3830293-ukraine-will-now-push-for-f-16-fighter-jets-government-adviser-says/

Alright already ... here have your NUKEs back too and call us in the morning. But remember two dixie cups and a string only go so far. 

[dan/california]

 

 

8 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/3830293-ukraine-will-now-push-for-f-16-fighter-jets-government-adviser-says/

Alright already ... here have your NUKEs back too and call us in the morning. But remember two dixie cups and a string only go so far. 

It is all about convincing the Russians they have nothing to gain but but more dead mobiks by staying in this war. Ukraine seems to have done a fair job of stacking bodies yesterday, but the bleepers morale hasn't given out yet. So yes, send more, and then send more than that. Until  whole brigades and divisions of Russian troops would rather shoot their officers and any Chechens they can catch, than fight the Ukrainians. That is how this war ends, barring an attack of sense in Moscow. Between cocaine, vodka, and God knows what synthetic drugs, I don't know if Moscow has enough brain cells left to figure out it ought to quit.

[kevinkin]

That's too slow. Just bring on the well trained USAF to carpet bomb the front lines. I am sure we can train up Ukrainians to push open the bomb bays. Scholz's face would be priceless when learning about this one as his gaggle of tanks creep toward the front. 

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

That's too slow. Just bring on the well trained USAF to carpet bomb the front lines. I am sure we can train up Ukrainians to push open the bomb bays.

I know you are kidding around, but this is one of those things that "the tank is dead" crowd seem to overlook.  If the US moved forces into Ukraine, right now, they would not move forward until there was air superiority and CAS readily available.  The US would choose a specific area to attack, have the USAF *HAMMER* that sector of front while artillery would be employed to get anything the Airforce didn't hit.  Then, and only then, would the ground forces move forward and would do so in a coordinated manner at scale.  No one or two tanks, whole f'n companies. 

There would be no significant coordinated defense left and what was left would face overwhelming, disciplined, combined arms solutions.  US losses might not be zero, but they would be light in absolute terms and embarrassingly so in relative terms to the Russian losses.  Either dead, surrendered, or retreating... they would not hold their ground in any meaningful sense of the term.

Chances are this "shock and awe" would disrupt the second and third lines of defense so that when they started getting attention they would likely fold up due to horrible morale and a sense of helplessness.  It would be corrosive warfare to an extreme.

Some might ask if I'm simply saying this because I am American and I have blinders on.  I don't think so.  What I have a deep understanding of this war combined with a deep understanding of how the US fights and what it fights with.  And I had better since, I simulate this stuff for a living

Bottom line here is I do not think the "tank is dead" right now when it is used with NATO doctrine air support, with NATO combined arms concepts, and full NATO combined arms formations.

If you read this over again and think of what shortcomings we know Ukraine has, it's probable that those differences are the reason why it hasn't swept the Russians out of its land yet.  NATO tanks will help address only a part of the deficiencies, maybe enough to make a significant change.  Maybe not.

Steve