Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[Mandy Lifeboats]

Let’s be realistic.  The threat of these tanks will have a far greater impact than their actual value.  

I mean that in a positive way.  Russia will now be building tank defences and deploying anti tank weapons along most of the front line.  That’s a hell of a lot of resource being taken up when the actual assault will be on tiny sections of the line. 

it would seem logical to hold the Challengers near Kyiv.  In fact…….paint them luminous pink and have them driving along the Belarus border every day.  Put the Abrams together and the Leopards together in different areas to maximise logistics.  

Let’s see how many Russians mobilise when they know they will be facing angry Ukrainians in US tanks.  
 

 

 

[Genie]

I hope this latest wave of goodies to the Ukrainian military is enough to turn the tide on this war.

 

[magnkarl]

28 minutes ago, Genie said:

I hope this latest wave of goodies to the Ukrainian military is enough to turn the tide on this war.

 

TBH, I think the bradleys was enough to turn this war, the MBTs will make it quicker but the Bradley is an awesome bit of kit. It'd take longer, and Ukraine would need to transfer them around, but now they can actually copy Bradley/Leopard/M1 tactics from NATO which is designed to roll over Russian positions once Russia expends itself (like it has now). The Ukrainian armoured assaults coming up will be devastating for Russian mobiks with AT weapons that still haven't worked on either of the models (I think maybe one got destroyed in Syria by an IED?).

[bickster]

16 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

TBH, I think the bradleys was enough to turn this war, the MBTs will make it quicker but the Bradley is an awesome bit of kit. It'd take longer, and Ukraine would need to transfer them around, but now they can actually copy Bradley/Leopard/M1 tactics from NATO which is designed to roll over Russian positions once Russia expends itself (like it has now). The Ukrainian armoured assaults coming up will be devastating for Russian mobiks with AT weapons that still haven't worked on either of the models (I think maybe one got destroyed in Syria by an IED?).

I think 8 Turkish Leopard 2s were confirmed destroyed in Syria. 6 of them with Russian 9M133 Kornet missiles used by ISIL

These were Leopard 2A4s which aren't the current specification and weren't upgraded by Germany to deal with explosive devices after Germany discovered they were being used against Kurdish Forces

[Mozzavfc]

Do the Russians have a Javelin/NLAW equivalent that could take out a Bradley/Leopard/Challenger?

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, Mozzavfc said:

Do the Russians have a Javelin/NLAW equivalent that could take out a Bradley/Leopard/Challenger?

As Bicks wrote above, the kornet could take out an older version of the Leopard 2. Challenger or Abrams, no idea - probably not. The bradley is an AFV, so it could be taken out, but it's got very sophisticated anti-incoming fire systems. The whole idea of the Bradley is to operate when Russian equipment can't anyhow, it's got amazing optics and will work in any sight condition, while the T-72 or the average Russian infantryman only has their eyes. I presume Russia also has some Krasnopol gps ammo left for their artillery, but I'm not even sure if a 152mm shell would go through the armor of Western MBTs.

Russia has bragged about their helicopter fired AT munitions for a while, but the issue with these is that they'll need to get close, which is not a good idea when the bradley and challenger can mount anti-air on their sides.

Edited January 25, 2023 by magnkarl

[sidcow]

It's definitely going to be fascinating to see how these tanks perform.

Challenger 2 designed for survivability against Russian tanks 

Leopard and Abrams to outgun and out manoeuvre them.

Challenger can also use HESH head's against other targets so more multi-purpose as well.

If Challenger (again) comes out unscathed it bodes well for Challenger 3 which will add serious firepower and massively enhanced targeting ability to the survivability.

These Russian Tanks are the enemy all these tanks were designed to beat in different ways.

Edited January 25, 2023 by sidcow

[bickster]

1 hour ago, Mozzavfc said:

Do the Russians have a Javelin/NLAW equivalent that could take out a Bradley/Leopard/Challenger?

They have the Kornet which has taken out both Bradley and Abrams in Iraq. It has a longer range and more explosive (with a dual warhead) than either the NLAW or the Javelin however it is also a two man unit so isn't anywhere near as portable as the Nato units which are light and can be carried by one man who can still operate a conventional rifle with it over his shoulder

[Don_Simon]

When reading the last few posts, it's at times difficult to seperate the intrigue in talking about battlefield tactics and strategy, (which I love, and thanks to those for putting their knowledge into the thread) to the realisation that these are actual people who are going to be killed because of one man's pyschotic decision making.

The sooner Putin dies and / or Russia loses this War the better. I win the award for stating the obvious, I know.

[magnkarl]

6 minutes ago, bickster said:

They have the Kornet which has taken out both Bradley and Abrams in Iraq. It has a longer range and more explosive (with a dual warhead) than either the NLAW or the Javelin however it is also a two man unit so isn't anywhere near as portable as the Nato units which are light and can be carried by one man who can still operate a conventional rifle with it over his shoulder

To add to this, the compartments of all Western vehicles being sent now means that the crew often escapes unharmed, and can go again in a new or repaired tank.

The Russians sit on their ammunition, while the ammunition is behind several layers of steel in Western MBT's. The crews are by far the most expensive to replace.

The tanks being sent now won't be what ends Russia, it'll be the tactics they allow Ukraine to employ due to said tanks.

Edited January 25, 2023 by magnkarl

[blandy]

It all seems to be building up to a new head, doesn't it? - Germany has stopped dithering, Ukraine gets heavy armour to bolster their plans (I guess) to push Russia back and to cut off supply lines and so on, while Russia seems to be in the process of mobilising a whole mass more conscripts with the aim of mounting a massive offensive to advance on Kyev. Putin still seems to be in control, dismissing various people he sees as a threat, the Wagner bloke is maybe being taken down a peg or two by Putin, perhaps because Putin's critics (or those criticising the conduct of the war he started) seem to be (internally) wanting more extreme actions and tactics, rather than bringing an end to the madness.

In the longer term, while most of the Republicans are supportive of Ukraine and US spending on helping Ukraine, there's enough crazies in their number to throw a spanner in the works and block approval votes for funding bills (they want tax cuts and so on and much smaller overall spending). Putin must be hoping that these right wing loons come to his aid. And there's wierd stuff going on with South Africa and China (conducting joint military exercises with Russia) and Mali (recruiting stop off for Wagner) and Burkino Faso (where Wagner group has replaced French peacekeepers).

[bickster]

It's a nice present from Germany for Zelensky's birthday

[Anthony]

55 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

The tanks being sent now won't be what ends Russia, it'll be the tactics they allow Ukraine to employ due to said tanks.

This is a key point. The tanks/AFVs sit in the middle of a protective ring, with footsoldiers on the perimeter spotting and scouting. The tank/AFV supports them in that role. What you don't do is send the armour in alone. NATO soldiers train and train and train to do this kind of combined arms warfare, and they need to, because it's bloody complicated. Ukrainian forces started being trained by NATO in 2014. Conversely, Russian soldiers are mainly trained to do what they're told. The result of this is that NATO/NATO trained soldiers will be much more effective straight off the bat. As time goes on the Russians will improve. If the survive the initial period.

[avfc1982am]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

To add to this, the compartments of all Western vehicles being sent now means that the crew often escapes unharmed, and can go again in a new or repaired tank.

The Russians sit on their ammunition, while the ammunition is behind several layers of steel in Western MBT's. The crews are by far the most expensive to replace.

The tanks being sent now won't be what ends Russia, it'll be the tactics they allow Ukraine to employ due to said tanks.

I also heard in the doc I posted yesterday that the ammo in a Leopard 2 is configured in a way to blow outwards and protect the crew. Without watching again I can't 100% confirm but my recollection I think is correct. 

What I did find really fascinating was the engine in a Leopard 2 could be replaced in 15 min. With regards to keeping them operational that must be a big advantage in the field. 

[bickster]

 

[NoelVilla]

So what will happen next? Ukraine fully armed with this stuff in April/May and then push the Russians out over the summer?

[Anthony]

Logistics for the Abrams is key. Don't they have gas turbines? That is, they use jet fuel rather than diesel? Could be a pain in the arse.

[pas5898]

7 minutes ago, NoelVilla said:

So what will happen next? Ukraine fully armed with this stuff in April/May and then push the Russians out over the summer?

Russia will throw as much meat into the grinder a possible in the next 6-8 weeks whilst MBT's get operational. "Re-Patriate" Ukrainian citizens as far away as possible and try to hide their war crimes. 

[avfc1982am]

5 minutes ago, bickster said:

 

15o or so isn't a bad starting point.

I am intrigued to know though. in which order would the tanks be classed as in overall class? I've heard through snippets that the Abrams is the best but most difficult to resup, The Challenger has exceptional armour, the Leopard probably the easiest to maintain and the Leclerc, well I don't know much about these but have heard it's an exceptional battle tank.

In reality though, which vehicle is best suited to this particular conflict in the sense of offensive or defensive effectiveness. Is there one that stands out amongst the others? Obviously the Leopard 2 is in abundance but can one of these tnks mentioned  literally take the fight to anything the Russians have and smash through them? 

[sidcow]

55 minutes ago, avfc1982am said:

15o or so isn't a bad starting point.

I am intrigued to know though. in which order would the tanks be classed as in overall class? I've heard through snippets that the Abrams is the best but most difficult to resup, The Challenger has exceptional armour, the Leopard probably the easiest to maintain and the Leclerc, well I don't know much about these but have heard it's an exceptional battle tank.

In reality though, which vehicle is best suited to this particular conflict in the sense of offensive or defensive effectiveness. Is there one that stands out amongst the others? Obviously the Leopard 2 is in abundance but can one of these tnks mentioned  literally take the fight to anything the Russians have and smash through them? 

I saw a thing the other day that the design concept of The Challanger 2 was that it was likely to be outnumbered by odds of 10 to 1 by Russian Tanks which is why survivability (combined with tactics) was deemed to be so important. 

Western tanks have all been improved immeasurably since their design stage so you would expect them to be able to take out massive numbers of Russian Tanks (assuming Russian Tanks haven't also been improved which judging by their performance so far, they haven't).