Is Ukraine about to have a war?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 30,873
Received 1,732 Likes
on
746 Posts
Bravery comes in many forms…
If Scholz was on that truck he would empty Germany’s warehouse’s to stop this..
Russian propagandist realises too ate that being on the front line comes at a cost.
If Scholz was on that truck he would empty Germany’s warehouse’s to stop this..
Russian propagandist realises too ate that being on the front line comes at a cost.
Last edited by NutLoose; 21st Jan 2023 at 16:34.
The following users liked this post:
All, a little, or nothing?
As far as I can see, at the moment Russian forces are being held back in some places, or are making negative advances in others helped by Ukraine's armed forces.
All of our Challenger 2s are at rest somewhere in UK and Europe not doing much. Piecemeal donations of MBTs merely mean that should the coming Russian spring offensive achieve the Russian aims then those piecemeal MBTs will have been defeated and, in some time-scale decided by Putins Kremlin, Russian forces will then look for the next missing piece of greater Russia which will inevitably be a NATO country, most likely Estonia.
Aha sez yourself, Article 5 kicks in. BUT will it? Will Hungary agree, will Germany pause things because of all the contracts their construction industry have in
And now, of course, we get to use our super duper MBTs, albeit far far too late, or watch the growth of new Russia.
I am minded of the old dilemma faced by the village elders where the road in the mountain leading to village had a bad bend which caused people to crash and fall down the mountain. Some in the village thought it best to keep an ambulance in the valley, others to build a fence on the mountain. Me? I’m all for the fence reinforced and guarded by 300 MBTs.
But then, what do I know? I'm only an ex NCO, not one of the smart retired VSO's or, God forbid, a politician.
Do we have VSOs among us?
And if so, are any smart?
And if so, are any smart?
This is about far more than MBTs. They are a part of the capability that Ukraine needs. The emphasis needs to be on "a part". Wars are not won by MBTs alone. Wars are won by combined arms. This goes right back to Sun Tzu. It's nothing new. Focussing on one element (a small one at that) takes away from the need to look at the whole tactical picture.
Look at the type of warfare in the east of Ukraine. It is mostly not being fought on open ground, where fast and agile MBTs are most effective. It's being largely fought in urban areas. Warfare in urban areas is always a PITA. Most here will understand that. Some from first-hand experience. MBTs can play a useful role in that scenario, but that role is less significant than several others.
I would argue that if there were two key capabilities to single out with respect to ground fighting (which is where wars are won or lost) then they are firstly a long range strike capability to reduce Russia's resupply capability by disrupting their logistic support. Secondly Ukraine needs equipment to support an agile urban warfare capability.
My reasoning is this. During winter trench warfare is highly dependent on having a viable supply chain. Knock out re-supply for a few days and troops in trenches die, just from the cold and lack of food and fuel. The urban environment is less sensitive to this. They can rob and forage, take shelter in buildings and are a lot harder to dislodge than troops in trenches.
Ukraine needs MBTs. But let's not get derailed into thinking they are the only thing they need. If Ukraine had the ability to knock out targets 150km or more from their strongly held positions they could seriously disrupt their attackers capability this winter. HIMARS is very effective but Ukraine needs something with a longer range. Pity the extended range GMLRS variants aren't in full production. Maybe there is something that can be quickly adapted to fit the F-16 and give a very accurate and reasonably long range stand-off capability (apologies if this exists - outside my area of expertise - I was but a humbles signals guy that went on to work as a contractor. There are big gaps in my knowledge and understanding).
Look at the type of warfare in the east of Ukraine. It is mostly not being fought on open ground, where fast and agile MBTs are most effective. It's being largely fought in urban areas. Warfare in urban areas is always a PITA. Most here will understand that. Some from first-hand experience. MBTs can play a useful role in that scenario, but that role is less significant than several others.
I would argue that if there were two key capabilities to single out with respect to ground fighting (which is where wars are won or lost) then they are firstly a long range strike capability to reduce Russia's resupply capability by disrupting their logistic support. Secondly Ukraine needs equipment to support an agile urban warfare capability.
My reasoning is this. During winter trench warfare is highly dependent on having a viable supply chain. Knock out re-supply for a few days and troops in trenches die, just from the cold and lack of food and fuel. The urban environment is less sensitive to this. They can rob and forage, take shelter in buildings and are a lot harder to dislodge than troops in trenches.
Ukraine needs MBTs. But let's not get derailed into thinking they are the only thing they need. If Ukraine had the ability to knock out targets 150km or more from their strongly held positions they could seriously disrupt their attackers capability this winter. HIMARS is very effective but Ukraine needs something with a longer range. Pity the extended range GMLRS variants aren't in full production. Maybe there is something that can be quickly adapted to fit the F-16 and give a very accurate and reasonably long range stand-off capability (apologies if this exists - outside my area of expertise - I was but a humbles signals guy that went on to work as a contractor. There are big gaps in my knowledge and understanding).
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 30,873
Received 1,732 Likes
on
746 Posts
[QUOTE=ACW342;11370932]
I understand that but a lot of the Challenger 2 are being converted, the U.K. has 227 in total, as opposed to 2300 Leopard 2 scattered about various countries and in storage.
Of those 227 tanks 148 Challenger 2 are slated to be upgraded, how many are currently going through the conversion process I do not know, but they are expected circa 2027 ish with fully in service 2030.
Plus we have tanks deployed under Article 5 to some of the NATO Countries, and of those 227 tanks, how many are actually usable is another question, often you hold war stocks that will need work to generate. I would have liked to see nearer thirty sent but those in the know will have looked at our capability to supply what and when.
https://www.army-technology.com/feat...r-2-provision/
And you are going to replace the Challenger 2 with what? You do realise that the Challenger 3 is simply an updated version of our current Challenger 2 tanks, NOT new builds, or are you intending to leave the British Army weapons wise on par with the Vatican City guard?[/QUOTE
Arty, Nutty, After some deep thought (painful at times) I thought that the idea was thatwe Ukraine are supposed to defeat Russian and Wagner forces In Ukraine, NOT by NATO in Poland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland or Sweden to mention the western most NATO/Nearly Nato countries currently with a direct border with Russia, and in some cases a border with Ukraine.
As far as I can see, at the moment Russian forces are being held back in some places, or are making negative advances in others helped by Ukraines armed forces.
All of our Challenger 2s are at rest somewhere in UK and Europe not doing much. Piecemeal donations of MBTs merely mean that should the coming Russian spring offensive achieve the Russian aims then those piecemeal MBTs will have been defeated and, in some timescale decided by Putins Kremlin, Russian forces will then look for the next missing piece of greater Russia which will inevitably be a Nato country, most likely Estonia.
Aha sez yourself, Article 5 kicks in. BUT will it? Will Hungary agree, will Germany pause things because of all the contracts their construction industry have inUkraine the New Russia. How about Turkiye, they might have problems out in their eastern areas and don’t won’t be able to help.
And now, of course, we get to use our super duper MBTs, albeit far far too late, or watch the growth of new Russia.
I am minded of the old dilemma faced by the village elders where the road in the mountain leading to village had a bad bend which caused people to crash and fall down the mountain. Some in the village thought it best to keep an ambulance in the valley, others to build a fence on the mountain. Me? I’m all for the fence reinforced and guarded by 300 MBTs.
But then, what do I know? I'm only an ex NCO, not one of the smart retired VSO's or, God forbid, a politician.
Arty, Nutty, After some deep thought (painful at times) I thought that the idea was that
As far as I can see, at the moment Russian forces are being held back in some places, or are making negative advances in others helped by Ukraines armed forces.
All of our Challenger 2s are at rest somewhere in UK and Europe not doing much. Piecemeal donations of MBTs merely mean that should the coming Russian spring offensive achieve the Russian aims then those piecemeal MBTs will have been defeated and, in some timescale decided by Putins Kremlin, Russian forces will then look for the next missing piece of greater Russia which will inevitably be a Nato country, most likely Estonia.
Aha sez yourself, Article 5 kicks in. BUT will it? Will Hungary agree, will Germany pause things because of all the contracts their construction industry have in
And now, of course, we get to use our super duper MBTs, albeit far far too late, or watch the growth of new Russia.
I am minded of the old dilemma faced by the village elders where the road in the mountain leading to village had a bad bend which caused people to crash and fall down the mountain. Some in the village thought it best to keep an ambulance in the valley, others to build a fence on the mountain. Me? I’m all for the fence reinforced and guarded by 300 MBTs.
But then, what do I know? I'm only an ex NCO, not one of the smart retired VSO's or, God forbid, a politician.
Of those 227 tanks 148 Challenger 2 are slated to be upgraded, how many are currently going through the conversion process I do not know, but they are expected circa 2027 ish with fully in service 2030.
Plus we have tanks deployed under Article 5 to some of the NATO Countries, and of those 227 tanks, how many are actually usable is another question, often you hold war stocks that will need work to generate. I would have liked to see nearer thirty sent but those in the know will have looked at our capability to supply what and when.
https://www.army-technology.com/feat...r-2-provision/
I agree, we obviously are not going to build another tank in the UK so may as well buy Abrams as a replacement.
The following users liked this post:
I understand that but a lot of the Challenger 2 are being converted, the U.K. has 227 in total, as opposed to 2300 Leopard 2 scattered about various countries and in storage.
Of those 227 tanks 148 Challenger 2 are slated to be upgraded, how many are currently going through the conversion process I do not know, but they are expected circa 2027 ish with fully in service 2030.
Plus we have tanks deployed under Article 5 to some of the NATO Countries, and of those 227 tanks, how many are actually usable is another question, often you hold war stocks that will need work to generate. I would have liked to see nearer thirty sent but those in the know will have looked at our capability to supply what and when.
https://www.army-technology.com/feat...r-2-provision/
*** Often robbed of parts to keep the operational vehicles going because there were no spares available.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
And you are going to replace the Challenger 2 with what?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 30,873
Received 1,732 Likes
on
746 Posts
I think any replacement new build needs to be home built, buying in has a quality all of its own, however, buying in means the demise of the UK’s tank building industry, the closing of factories and the dispersal of the design teams meaning you will be beholden to other countries for your Armaments from hence forth. Look what happened to the likes of the UK’s once world beating military aviation companies, killed off by imports.
Arty, Nutty, After some deep thought (painful at times) I thought that the idea was that we Ukraine are supposed to defeat Russian and Wagner forces In Ukraine, NOT by NATO in Poland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland or Sweden to mention the western most NATO/Nearly Nato countries currently with a direct border with Russia, and in some cases a border with Ukraine.
I think any replacement new build needs to be home built, buying in has a quality all of its own, however, buying in means the demise of the UK’s tank building industry, the closing of factories and the dispersal of the design teams meaning you will be beholden to other countries for your Armaments from hence forth. Look what happened to the likes of the UK’s once world beating military aviation companies, killed off by imports.
There is a great deal of merit in paying to retain a UK capability, The proviso is that it MUST be interoperable. The UK has a very nasty habit of producing unicorns, and then not having the funds to keep them operational and properly supported.
We could do a lot worse than look at Sweden. They have around 15% of the population of the UK, yet manage to produce and support some very capable bits of kit.
The following 4 users liked this post by _Agrajag_:
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I think any replacement new build needs to be home built, buying in has a quality all of its own, however, buying in means the demise of the UK’s tank building industry, the closing of factories and the dispersal of the design teams
There is a great deal of merit in paying to retain a UK capability, The proviso is that it MUST be interoperable. The UK has a very nasty habit of producing unicorns, and then not having the funds to keep them operational and properly supported.
We could do a lot worse than look at Sweden. They have around 15% of the population of the UK, yet manage to produce and support some very capable bits of kit.
We could do a lot worse than look at Sweden. They have around 15% of the population of the UK, yet manage to produce and support some very capable bits of kit.
and quite a lot of it comes from companies owned by BAE Systems. Perhaps though, they bought the companies and then remained hands-off. I don't know how they manage companies they buy.
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,693
Received 99 Likes
on
47 Posts
Looking at UK, we have a sad history of producing decent kit that nobody else buys, thus stuffing the unit cost through the roof. Yes, we need (?) a Defence industry, but my gut feeling is that go-it-alone days are long gone. Collaboration is the way ahead, surely? Stuff Challenger xx and buy in to a programme with Korea or [dare I say] Germany.
Looking at UK, we have a sad history of producing decent kit that nobody else buys, thus stuffing the unit cost through the roof. Yes, we need (?) a Defence industry, but my gut feeling is that go-it-alone days are long gone. Collaboration is the way ahead, surely? Stuff Challenger xx and buy in to a programme with Korea or [dare I say] Germany.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 30,873
Received 1,732 Likes
on
746 Posts
The U.K. BAe and Rheinmetall UK combined to form a single U.K. company, so probably not.
The following users liked this post:
KMW and the French company Nexter have merged and are going to be building one unit to replace the Leopard and the Leclerc. This company is headquartered in the Netherlands which I see as their attempt to escape interference from both German and French governments.
