How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[chrisl]

9 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

 

This entirely ignores current or planned production of new tanks. I literally pointed out Lithuania ordering new Leopard 2s These are going to be new builds. Its not just simply a case of everyone sitting on their stockpiles until they run out. 

 

Sounds like they have a role then!

 

We need to be very wary of confirmation bias and the fact that drone based munitions are inherently have by nature a more accessible nature. Just because we dont see as much of it doesn't mean its not doing a lot of work. 

Current production is at levels of post WWII battleship production.  

The US produces ~130 tanks/year, mostly because we can and maybe they'll be useful some day, and it keeps some people off the street in Ohio.  But as noted by @photon regarding battleships - the US is famous for its excesses.  "we wallow in so many resources that we can commit to building ships that we'll just scuttle later to make reefs"

Russia loses more than that many per month in Ukraine.

People sailed battleships around long after they stopped being particularly useful.  Argentina even managed to get one sunk by a submarine after they invaded the Falkland Islands.

ETA: and with the levels of ISR available to the US, if the tank were that valuable to Ukraine, we'd be cranking up tank production for our own use.  There's a room full of E4s somewhere verifying tank kills that the AI has picked out from satellite imagery.

Edited Thursday at 09:34 PM by chrisl

[The_Capt]

22 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Current production is at levels of post WWII battleship production.  

The US produces ~130 tanks/year, mostly because we can and maybe they'll be useful some day, and it keeps some people off the street in Ohio.  But as noted by @photon regarding battleships - the US is famous for its excesses.  "we wallow in so many resources that we can commit to building ships that we'll just scuttle later to make reefs"

Russia loses more than that many per month in Ukraine.

People sailed battleships around long after they stopped being particularly useful.  Argentina even managed to get one sunk by a submarine after they invaded the Falkland Islands.

ETA: and with the levels of ISR available to the US, if the tank were that valuable to Ukraine, we'd be cranking up tank production for our own use.  There's a room full of E4s somewhere verifying tank kills that the AI has picked out from satellite imagery.

Investing in tanks and mech is a reflex action. To do so now without an ability to protect them - and there isn't one - is a monument to irrational military investment.

The tank is still pretty much dead...but it is a zombie. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

7 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Current production is at levels of post WWII battleship production.  

The US produces ~130 tanks/year, mostly because we can and maybe they'll be useful some day, and it keeps some people off the street in Ohio.  But as noted by @photon regarding battleships - the US is famous for its excesses.  "we wallow in so many resources that we can commit to building ships that we'll just scuttle later to make reefs"

Because they literally made thousands and are now waiting for the M1E3 specifications to outlined for full production. They still make other M1 types for expert pretty much all the time. A lot of countries in the middle east literally use M1s quite heavily. Egypt alone has over a -thousand- of them. 
 

9 minutes ago, chrisl said:

People sailed battleships around long after they stopped being particularly useful.  Argentina even managed to get one sunk by a submarine after they invaded the Falkland Islands.

Belgrano was not a battleship but a light cruiser. 

10 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Russia loses more than that many per month in Ukraine.

Because they insist on using them wastefully. Most of said tanks are literally refurbed cold war tanks that really should not be upheld as outstanding examples of good tanks. 

11 minutes ago, chrisl said:

ETA: and with the levels of ISR available to the US, if the tank were that valuable to Ukraine, we'd be cranking up tank production for our own use.  There's a room full of E4s somewhere verifying tank kills that the AI has picked out from satellite imagery.

Did you not see the recent submitted requirements for M1E3? The US is literally going to be building a new generation of tank within a few years with a lot of changes reflective of recent experiences. UK is building Chally 3. Germany is building a new Leopard. I could go on. 

 

[The_Capt]

5 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Did you not see the recent submitted requirements for M1E3? The US is literally going to be building a new generation of tank within a few years with a lot of changes reflective of recent experiences. UK is building Chally 3. Germany is building a new Leopard. I could go on. 

This is because you do not understand how military procurement works.  Those tanks were put in motion, contracts awarded and money spent years ago.  We normally buy 10 years out, tanks in the program are evidence of the program and real world corporate commitments, not operational viability.  They will stick more turrets on them to try but these are really post mortem twitches.

[ArmouredTopHat]

Just now, The_Capt said:

This is because you do not understand how military procurement works.  Those tanks were put in motion, contracts awarded and money spent years ago.  We normally buy 10 years out, tanks in the program are evidence of the program and real world corporate commitments, not operational viability.  They will stick more turrets on them to try but these are really post mortem twitches.

So why does no one cancel such procurement if the tank is dead? Why has no one done so?

M1E3 was literally announced last year, it did not exist prior. SepV4 was cancelled in favour of it 

https://www.army.mil/article/269706/army_announces_plans_for_m1e3_abrams_tank_modernization

[dan/california]

34 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

A lot of countries in the middle east literally use M1s quite heavily. Egypt alone has over a -thousand- of them. 
 

And the fact that everyone of them wasn't Ukraine s a solid two years ago is absolutely crazy making. And yes I am in the tank is dead school, but in Fall 22 the Russians almost wobbled right off their bar stool. It would have mattered then.

[ArmouredTopHat]

3 minutes ago, dan/california said:

And the fact that everyone of them wasn't Ukraine s a solid two years ago is absolutely crazy making. And yes I am in the tank is dead school, but in Fall 22 the Russians almost wobbled right off their bar stool. It would have mattered then.

This I can agree on whole heartedly. A proper commitment to Ukraine would of done so much. I can only imagine what a better equipped vehicle force with some more NATO training would have done for the AFU in those months into the invasion. We would of seen a lot more destroyed / encircled Russian units. 

[chrisl]

47 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Investing in tanks and mech is a reflex action. To do so now without an ability to protect them - and there isn't one - is a monument to irrational military investment.

The tank is still pretty much dead...but it is a zombie. 

JFC.  Zombie hordes were bad enough. Now we have zombie tanks?

[ArmouredTopHat]

53 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The tank is still pretty much dead...but it is a zombie. 

It might as well be in the eyes of certain people when they keep thinking its died, only to keep coming back. 

Edited Thursday at 10:48 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[chrisl]

40 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

So why does no one cancel such procurement if the tank is dead? Why has no one done so?

M1E3 was literally announced last year, it did not exist prior. SepV4 was cancelled in favour of it 

https://www.army.mil/article/269706/army_announces_plans_for_m1e3_abrams_tank_modernization

Because gov't procurement...

Sometimes it costs just as much to end a program as it does to just let it run its course.  It's not free to turn off a program.

And the US MIC loves to spend lots of money on the off chance that something might be useful, or just to keep the technical capability in practice in case it's needed for something similar.

[Vanir Ausf B]

40 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

So why does no one cancel such procurement if the tank is dead? Why has no one done so?

Lithuania is the head-scratcher. A country with no tanks decides in 2023 it wants tanks. Either they know something we don't or we know something they don't.

[chrisl]

54 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Because they insist on using them wastefully. Most of said tanks are literally refurbed cold war tanks that really should not be upheld as outstanding examples of good tanks. 
 

Using them wastefully?  I'm seeing an awful lot of them getting blown up driving to the FEBA.  They're not exactly stealthy.

[dan/california]

52 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

So why does no one cancel such procurement if the tank is dead? Why has no one done so?

M1E3 was literally announced last year, it did not exist prior. SepV4 was cancelled in favour of it 

https://www.army.mil/article/269706/army_announces_plans_for_m1e3_abrams_tank_modernization

Between the contracts, the politics, and the defense jobs, I suspect it is not much more expensive to take delivery and quietly park them somewhere as a "reserve". That is after people can bring themselves to admit the truth.

Edit: Also the M1E# contract was mostly for development work. There are huge outstanding decisions yet to be made about the design. Big ones, like whether the turret will be completely unmanned. I am sure there is a huge list of targets the new setup has to meet to get past the prototype stage. The crunch point comes when those prototypes are being tested. 

Edited Thursday at 11:02 PM by dan/california

[ArmouredTopHat]

3 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Because gov't procurement...

Sometimes it costs just as much to end a program as it does to just let it run its course.  It's not free to turn off a program.

And the US MIC loves to spend lots of money on the off chance that something might be useful, or just to keep the technical capability in practice in case it's needed for something similar.

They literally cancelled the previous plans in favour of M1E3, having recognised the need to increase survivability and reduce weight. If it was the fault of procurement they would of let Sepv4 run its course instead of going for M1E3.
 

3 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Lithuania is the head-scratcher. A country with no tanks decides in 2023 it wants tanks. Either they know something we don't or we know something they don't.

Combined with NATO countries on the eastern flank actively increasing tank fleets it seems obvious to me. The only entity that has gotten rid of tanks for an understandable reason recently is the USMC who are now optimising for the pacific. I would say there has clearly been a lot of deep thought about it by people with a hell of a lot more data than us. 

3 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Using them wastefully?  I'm seeing an awful lot of them getting blown up driving to the FEBA.  They're not exactly stealthy.

I consider it a waste to attrition your tanks constantly in small, constant pinprick attacks without proper smoke coverage. Especially when half of your tanks are less capable than previously due to being reburbs...or literal T-62s. One thing I have noticed when it comes to FPVs is that they usually need a lot more of them to kill the better tanks. Seen plenty of footage of T-90Ms absorbing quite a few of them, unless the hatches are left open or something. T-72B3s and the like seem a lot easier for FPVs to knock out. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

Just now, dan/california said:

Between the contracts, the politics, and the defense jobs, I suspect it is not much more expensive to take delivery and quietly park them somewhere as a "reserve". That is after people can bring themselves to admit the truth.

But they literally cancelled a contract / plan that was at least 5 years in the making. They are already paying an upfront cost because of that. I think its clear they are pretty serious about at least attempting a vehicle that is more optimised for the current battlefield conditions. If their data clearly showed it was not worth the bother they would of just kept SepV4 on the slowburn and cease active development of the tank. Clearly this is not the case. 

Why are we assuming like this is as given thing when we clearly dont know the full picture? Its like deciding that planes are no longer worth it because someone has a SAM site. 

[sburke]

1 minute ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Why are we assuming like this is as given thing when we clearly dont know the full picture? Its like deciding that planes are no longer worth it because someone has a SAM site. 

not quite.  We actually have a couple years of data to work from so no the analogy is very very flawed.

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

But they literally cancelled a contract / plan that was at least 5 years in the making. They are already paying an upfront cost because of that. I think its clear they are pretty serious about at least attempting a vehicle that is more optimised for the current battlefield conditions. If their data clearly showed it was not worth the bother they would of just kept SepV4 on the slowburn and cease active development of the tank. Clearly this is not the case. 

Why are we assuming like this is as given thing when we clearly dont know the full picture? Its like deciding that planes are no longer worth it because someone has a SAM site. 

The Pentagon always writes wildly ambitious goals for these sort of projects. Sometimes the contractors meet them. sometimes the Pentagon decides something is better than nothing and waves requirements, and sometimes they point to requirement  E36 sub paragraph A and say so sorry not buying this time around. We just don't know anything until we get to that point.

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

9 minutes ago, sburke said:

not quite.  We actually have a couple years of data to work from so no the analogy is very very flawed.

During which NATO countries actively enlarged their tank fleets or went from no tanks at all to tanks. Curious isn't it? 

The couple of years in question has featured a pretty evolving degree of combat that we do not know the final form of for certain. I really do think its a case of waiting and seeing while taking notes...which is exactly what NATO is doing. 

 

7 minutes ago, dan/california said:

The Pentagon always writes wildly ambitious goals for these sort of projects. Sometimes the contractors meet them. sometimes the Pentagon decides something is better than nothing and waves requirements, and sometimes they point to requirement  E36 sub paragraph A and say so sorry not buying this time around. We just don't know anything until we get to that point.

Oh for sure, yet this project seems to have a pretty focussed aim and set of priorities. Its not exactly an unrealistic or overambitious project either. They are not attempting to make a super doopa modular vehicle that can do everything. They want a lighter Abrams with a logical engine change and integrated APS with a smaller crew. Its very much the right direction to go based on the issues of western MBTs we have see in Ukraine (too heavy being the top major complaint) 

They keep talking about the autoloader being a maybe but to me in order to achieve that weight reduction the loader is 100% going. It would help a lot to reducing the size and weight of the vehicle overall. (Also cheaper for the human training element) Time will tell if it goes anywhere but I suspect it will. 

Edited Thursday at 11:14 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[sburke]

1 minute ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

During which NATO countries actively enlarged their tank fleets or went from no tanks at all to tanks. Curious isn't it? 

No it isn't if you can bother to read what @The_Capt has been trying to explain.  He has a lot more freakin patience than I do.

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 minute ago, sburke said:

No it isn't if you can bother to read what @The_Capt has been trying to explain.  He has a lot more freakin patience than I do.

?

Lithuania ordered tanks after previously having none. Poland has massively and continues to increase its tank fleet. Germany is also doing the same if I recall. 

Is the claim really that all these different countries are just reacting to the whims of their defence bureaucracies / inertia and that they are all in fact wrong and we should not be bothering at all? What level of actual hubris is this. 

Sorry to say but I think broadly the military might have a better idea of what they want than you do. 

I would not be saying this if countries were trying to dump their tank fleets as quickly as they could. 

[chrisl]

20 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

They literally cancelled the previous plans in favour of M1E3, having recognised the need to increase survivability and reduce weight. If it was the fault of procurement they would of let Sepv4 run its course instead of going for M1E3.
 

Combined with NATO countries on the eastern flank actively increasing tank fleets it seems obvious to me. The only entity that has gotten rid of tanks for an understandable reason recently is the USMC who are now optimising for the pacific. I would say there has clearly been a lot of deep thought about it by people with a hell of a lot more data than us. 

I consider it a waste to attrition your tanks constantly in small, constant pinprick attacks without proper smoke coverage. Especially when half of your tanks are less capable than previously due to being reburbs...or literal T-62s. One thing I have noticed when it comes to FPVs is that they usually need a lot more of them to kill the better tanks. Seen plenty of footage of T-90Ms absorbing quite a few of them, unless the hatches are left open or something. T-72B3s and the like seem a lot easier for FPVs to knock out. 

Smoke? in 2024?  Have you been in cold storage on a spaceship since 1970 and they just thawed you out?  Are you expecting some kind of massive tank assault with breakthrough and exploitation?  Go back and look at the river crossing pictures to see what happens to mass.  How many fuel trucks does Russia have that are as well armored as a T-90M?

So what if it takes a few more FPVs to kill a T-90M - there aren't many of them, FPVs are absurdly cheap, and their drivers get to make mistakes and learn without coming to harm while blowing up the trained drivers of the T-90s.

You're convincing me that the tank is deader and deader and that this is all some sort of elaborate steel recycling and donation program.

How many M1E3s are on firm order?

[chrisl]

3 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

?

Lithuania ordered tanks after previously having none. Poland has massively and continues to increase its tank fleet. Germany is also doing the same if I recall. 

Is the claim really that all these different countries are just reacting to the whims of their defence bureaucracies / inertia and that they are all in fact wrong and we should not be bothering at all? What level of actual hubris is this. 

Sorry to say but I think broadly the military might have a better idea of what they want than you do. 

I would not be saying this if countries were trying to dump their tank fleets as quickly as they could. 

Russia is certainly trying to dump its tank fleet as fast as they can.

[sburke]

3 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

?

Lithuania ordered tanks after previously having none. Poland has massively and continues to increase its tank fleet. Germany is also doing the same if I recall. 

Is the claim really that all these different countries are just reacting to the whims of their defence bureaucracies / inertia and that they are all in fact wrong and we should not be bothering at all? What level of actual hubris is this. 

Sorry to say but I think broadly the military might have a better idea of what they want than you do. 

I would not be saying this if countries were trying to dump their tank fleets as quickly as they could. 

so you repeat your point... so what?  Still think you haven't really read nor understood what has been communicated to you in innumerable very long posts on this thread.

[ArmouredTopHat]

Just now, chrisl said:

Smoke? in 2024?  Have you been in cold storage on a spaceship since 1970 and they just thawed you out?  Are you expecting some kind of massive tank assault with breakthrough and exploitation?  Go back and look at the river crossing pictures to see what happens to mass.  How many fuel trucks does Russia have that are as well armored as a T-90M?

What does mass have to do with the act of using smoke to properly cover an assault? Half the assaults we see have the Russians literally use very little smoke to at least conceal the flanks of their approach from ATGMs for instance. Its been a curiosity that I cannot quite explain. The most smoke we see most of the time is vehicle based. I am personally wondering where all the tube for smoke laying went to. 
 

2 minutes ago, chrisl said:

You're convincing me that the tank is deader and deader and that this is all some sort of elaborate steel recycling and donation program.

How many M1E3s are on firm order?

I suspect you were already convinced and nothing I say will change that. M1E3 is still very much fresh and it will be a year or two before we know more solid data on what it will actually incorporate. Maybe it will get cancelled, who knows. I suspect it wont after they cancelled the 'run of the mill' upgrade that was Sepv4. Clearly the Americans have decided they need to adjust their tanks. 

[chrisl]

26 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

But they literally cancelled a contract / plan that was at least 5 years in the making. They are already paying an upfront cost because of that. I think its clear they are pretty serious about at least attempting a vehicle that is more optimised for the current battlefield conditions. If their data clearly showed it was not worth the bother they would of just kept SepV4 on the slowburn and cease active development of the tank. Clearly this is not the case. 

Why are we assuming like this is as given thing when we clearly dont know the full picture? Its like deciding that planes are no longer worth it because someone has a SAM site. 

I've worked on gov't programs that went a decade and spent a bundle and got cancelled, even when everything was going fine but there were changes in direction on what they wanted to do.  It's part of how they figure out if they want something.