Ukraine-in-a-thread

[Papewaio]

It has to be a really big IED

and I meant to say, "The only tank..."

I know. But war doesn't work that way. And the IEDs don't need to destroy the tank, just the tracks and then you have all the tactics have to change to deal with the IEDs.

Given a lot of the orginal IEDs came from tank mines, I assume those would be used too.

Tanks are great. Combined arms is greater.

[naut]

Putin is a better chest player

Yes. Yes he certainly is.

[Husar]

One notes that it is a rifled gun - because the 120 smoothbore on the Abrams is, frankly, somewhat sub-par. They were going to mount that same gun on the Challenger - which would have been a shame.

FYI - to date the only thing capable of knocking out a Challenger II Tank is another Challenger II - the combination of rifled gun and superior armour makes it the best combat tank.

Oh please, not that old story again...

1. the L7 is outdated, not even the British use it anymore. It's not a bad gun but it won't kill dozens of soviet tanks as Cube suggests because it simply cannot provide such great penetrations anymore.

2. The old British myth about smoothbore guns is complete rubbish and the Challenger 2 is more like a design nightmare than a great gun system. The armor may be good but it's hard to say really when most of it is classified. If certain armor schemes from certain tank simulations are to be believed, it has quite a few weakspots while the rest of the armor is comparable or just slightly better than that of the Abrams and Leopard 2.

3. The 120mm smoothbore is not sub-par, it is quite superior to the British L30 rifled 120mm gun and british ammunition is mostly sub-par as far as I'm aware. The rifling gives the projectile some stability and thus accuracy but smoothbore guns make up for that with fin-stabilized projectiles. The rifling does however result in lower penetration capabilities because the drag slows the projectile down and additionally some projectiles such as HEAT do not work very well when they're spinning like crazy. Then you have the fact that the British gun uses two-part or even three-part ammunition (I'm not entirely sure whether the third part is that relevant) which not only makes loading slower but also limits the length of the penetrator rod, which is a huge problem regarding the maximum penetration capabilities. And that's exactly why the British army considered UPGRADING to the smoothbore gun but the project was cancelled because it would have required completely new turrets to store the larger one-part ammunition for the smoothbore gun and that was deemed too expensive.

4. Either way the Abrams and especially the Leopard 2A6 with the longer L/55 smoothbore gun have far superior penetration to the British rifled gun, the only ones who believe and say otherwise are deluded British patriots and nationalists or British people who just don't know better. Oh, and a guy called TankNutDave who spreads his propaganda all over youtube and his own website.

5. If you think the Challenger 2 is such a great tank, ask yourself why it has only two users, Britain and Oman, and why even former British colonies decided to get other tanks instead.

[rvg]

You took that away from my one liner? You must be fun at comedy festivals.

Better luck next time.

[Husar]

The secret sauce in the Abrams and the Stryker MGS is the ammo. Our Sabots fly farther, faster, and penetrate everything. Its the only reason the MGS is even a viable weapons system.

Every country likes to think their tanks are more survivable, and that makes great propaganda, but in a real tank war everyone's life expectancy is very short and offense wins the day.

The DU ammo is superior with the L/44 but the L/55 achieves a higher penetration with our tungsten sabots because of the increased muzzle velocity and it also provides some room for improvement because it allows for higher gas pressures. I don't think a DU penetrator will allow the L7 to penetrate the newest Russian tanks, the Abrams was upgraded from the L7 to the L/44 for a reason.

[Kadagar_AV]

The secret sauce in the Abrams and the Stryker MGS is the ammo. Our Sabots fly farther, faster, and penetrate everything. Its the only reason the MGS is even a viable weapons system.

Every country likes to think their tanks are more survivable, and that makes great propaganda, but in a real tank war everyone's life expectancy is very short and offense wins the day.

I'm no expert, but an expert I talked to shrugged his shoulders and did a 50/50 sign when I asked which tank was the best. I know Sweden choose German Leopards over USAnian Abrams. We also put our own Ericsson special made communication device on it, as well as some sort of a "net" (term used vaguely) around it to soak up the first charge, in a two charged weapon system deviced to penetrate the active armor.

So yeah, Sweden wins this battle, hands down.

As to the bolded part. In a real whatever war, the side able to sustain losses and carry on wins the day.

If I remember correctly, I believe the US met its limit during Vietnam, censoring their free press from showing the US bodies. The idea that US morale is high enough to go into an attrition war vs Russia, over Ukraine, is laughable.

PS... And the EU doesn't penis measure in the same way, thus we over here are largely unaffected. We know/believe we will work out a functional agreement with whatever side wins.

[Kadagar_AV]

Ya good for sweden. Not sure what you're arguing about, since I didn't take the position that war is likely. At all.

I argued we in Sweden have the best tanks, of course.

My post might have slided towards Re: What can "The West" do if Russia expands? though... As in the topic... Obviously my bad.

[rvg]

PS... And the EU doesn't penis measure in the same way, thus we over here are largely unaffected. We know/believe we will work out a functional agreement with whatever side wins.

I suggest the Munich accord. It worked out so well last time around.

[rvg]

I said quite a few posts back that many countries have tanks comparable to or individually better than the Abrams. What makes it, as I said, the Gold standard is that there are so many of them and that they've more than proven themselves over the last twenty years. Most of what makes a modern Leopard, Challenger, or even Leclerc seem better are the results of expensive over-engineering. The Abrams was the over-engineered wonder tank of the early 90s, but these days its more comparable to other great American tanks of the past: Its a good tank, and we have more of them than anyone could ever ignore. As many as 4000-8000 depending on who you ask. They'll be relevant well into the future, until future "tanks" that fire smart-rounds from far enough away to count as indirect become the norm, so probably another twenty years at least.

I think KAV's problem with Abrams is mostly due to the fact that it's an American tank. It could shoot stealth bombers out of the sky and it still wouldn't be good enough.

[Beskar]

Being honest, the most of what Russia has is initiative and the initial first strike, it could end up backfiring from their own mishandling. We have seen Putin jump in with two feet, and he has made a step-back already. It could be simply to ease tensions or it could be something more underlying such as domestic and local support, Ukraine isn't rolling over too easily.

At how things are looking, we are looking at an independent Crimea being the end-result so far, it would the most face-saving solution for the Russia's and if delivered in the right way, the West will concede with no harm really done as long as it sticks to that. Ukraine may not easily forgive them and makes them jump in bed with NATO. Russia can push for more, but doing so will punish it more severely, a risk it might not be wanting to stomach.

All-out war will make Russia lose far more than it would gain, and even though people have been attacking the 'West' for a will to fight, the one with the real will which might triumph over the Russians is the Ukrainians themselves.

[Kadagar_AV]

I think KAV's problem with Abrams is mostly due to the fact that it's an USAnian tank. It could shoot stealth bombers out of the sky and it still wouldn't be good enough.

Huh? I very well know it's a sterling piece of machinery. Worst thing I have said about Abrams, is that it was comparable to another damn great tank.

1 vs 1 I honestly think USAnian or European tanks would win against whatever Russia puts up.

My point was that warfare isn't about 1 vs 1 fights. Let me stress the point, people actively engaged in war will quite often go out of their way to avoid 1 vs 1 fights.

[rvg]

Huh? I very well know it's a sterling piece of machinery. Worst thing I have said about Abrams, is that it was comparable to another damn great tank.

1 vs 1 I honestly think USAnian or European tanks would win against whatever Russia puts up.

My point was that warfare isn't about 1 vs 1 fights. Let me stress the point, people actively engaged in war will quite often go out of their way to avoid 1 vs 1 fights.

If you're going to reply to my posts, you could at least have the courtesy of not distorting what I have typed.

[Kadagar_AV]

Ya, and us "USAnians" are the only ones with enough modern tanks to sustain the kinds of inevitable losses you would see in a real Russia vs The West doomsday scenario.

No.

In a doomsday scenario Europe is impregnable. We can spit out troops and equipment, and we have quite some special nation equipment and techniques working in our local geography.

Gebirgsjäger will supply the enemy with as much avalanches and rock slides as they can handle in the alps, while Norrlandsjägare harass supply lines in -45 degrees.

I'm not joking. Europes offensive capabilities will take decades to build up. Our defensive ability though, is just as I mentioned, impregnable.

Or more easily put: We are too diverse to coordinate an offensive, but that we are diverse plays in our hands when it comes to defending. We have covered a vast geographical landscape all with specialized soldiers, equipment and training... Since centuries if not millenniums!!

[Kadagar_AV]

Well I hope you're right. Doesn't look like we'll be around to protect Europe much longer.

Nah, you'd rather ally with no one.

Or Russia?

Or China? Africa? India?

What would the alternative be?

EDIT: Remember, Europe protect YOU too. And from the looks of it, you have more enemies currently. Sure you want to give up on EU support just like that?

[rvg]

I think the president has made it clear that our military interests just aren't in Europe any more. Europe should get working on those offensive capabilities.

We need to make sure that the next prez isn't Kenyan-born.

[Kadagar_AV]

I think the president has made it clear that our military interests just aren't in Europe any more. Europe should get working on those offensive capabilities.

Yeah.... This is what you don't get.

Remember this thing called TW? It was a game you could play. Along with all the military options, there was also a diplomacy tab.

THERE you have Europes offensive capabilities. Heck, we even had the US clean up our own dirty back yard not long ago (Serbia).

Honestly speaking, I much prefer to be militarily unthreatening but impregnable. "You can't beat us, but we can be your friends".

How is the US policy going for you lately? Much in national debt yet?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ya, and us "USAnians" are the only ones with enough modern tanks to sustain the kinds of inevitable losses you would see in a real Russia vs The West doomsday scenario.

Truth.

I'm not going to argue the tank thing any more - but the challenger II is about 15 years newer, has better armour and can lob a Hesh round about 8Km - it doesn't fire HEAT.

So, I dunno if any of that matters - Abrams is much quieter and I heard it can run on fish oil.

The Challenger is disadvantaged because the Americans opted for a smoothbore gun, which means the British are the only nation which produces ammunition compatible for the L30 gun.

I tend to agree with HUSAR though - trying to make tank-hunters out of Strykers using guns pulled from old Abrams tanks doesn't seem too clever any way you slice it.

[Husar]

I'm no expert, but an expert I talked to shrugged his shoulders and did a 50/50 sign when I asked which tank was the best. I know Sweden choose German Leopards over USAnian Abrams. We also put our own Ericsson special made communication device on it, as well as some sort of a "net" (term used vaguely) around it to soak up the first charge, in a two charged weapon system deviced to penetrate the active armor.

So yeah, Sweden wins this battle, hands down.

No.
The expert was right though.

Your "net" seems to be just slat armor aka spaced armor, which is not exactly a new invention or in any way unique to Sweden.

The Stryker MGS is a money saving measure. Lots of my old Army buddies are serving on those now. They are a legit modern TD, but no replacement for the Abrams.

I still don't see how the MGS is a TD unless you're facing more asad babils or other badly armored tanks by modern standards. This page has some interesting info: http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2583.html

The 105 mm M68A2 rifled gun is based on the M68A1 barrel but now has an integrated pepperpot muzzle brake, muzzle reference system, standard bore evacuator and a thermal sleeve. It should be noted that its primary role is to support infantry, not engage threat armoured fighting vehicles.

Incidentally it also touches slat armor:

In early 2007 a decision was made by Canada to cancel the acquisition of 66 MGS and instead procure Leopard 2 MBTs.

The first of these, Leopard 2A6M CAN, was handed over to the Canadian Army late in July 2007. These are upgraded German Army Leopard 2A6M with a number of enhancements including slat armour for deployment to Afghanistan.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Stryker MGS is a money saving measure. Lots of my old Army buddies are serving on those now. They are a legit modern TD, but no replacement for the Abrams.

Yeah - but you still need more tanks - and so do we. We've gone from 4 armoured regiments 20 years ago to 1.

[rvg]

Yeah - but you still need more tanks - and so do we. We've gone from 4 armoured regiments 20 years ago to 1.

Instead of trying to out-tank the Russians it might be better to utterly outplane them. Their tanks won't mean diddly squat if we own the skies. I see no reason to tackle their tanks head on.

[rvg]

It'll be interesting to see if that changes pending further Russian aggression though... lotta people would be perfectly happy to go back to the cold war, especially in the military.

The world was a simpler, more honest place back in the cold war days.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Instead of trying to out-tank the Russians it might be better to utterly outplane them. Their tanks won't mean diddly squat if we own the skies. I see no reason to tackle their tanks head on.

You need to be able to do both.

Fighting Russia will be a real war - your Air Force will be used to keep the Ruskies off your tanks and your tanks will be used to keep their tanks off your infantry.

[rvg]

A brief study of the air war vs. Saddam's tanks in '91 should dispel this notion. Air superiority is a war winner, no doubt, but at the end of the day tanks kill tanks. Air, light infantry, scouts, mines, all these things can harass or deter tanks but not reliably stop them.

Air superiority also means drones with hellfires patrolling the skies 24/7. Drones were not a factor back in '91.

[Kadagar_AV]

Instead of trying to out-tank the Russians it might be better to utterly outplane them. Their tanks won't mean diddly squat if we own the skies. I see no reason to tackle their tanks head on.

You really ought to send this to HQ at once. I am sure they will be flabbergasted and regret the last decades of policy.

[rvg]

I honestly think the Russkies have spent more time on the conventional use of drones than we have, strategy-wise. They're really more of an intel thing than anything else, and they'd be fodder for enemy fighters or SAMs.

How would they be fodder for their fighters or sams if we utterly suppress their air defense capabilities? Russians might have good AA, but they cannot ignore the laws of numbers: if we emphasize our air power (and by "we" I mean "NATO") Russian AA will get crushed. From then on it's drones galore until some yahoo decides that "password" is an adequately secure passcode for the remote control of the drones.

[Kadagar_AV]

How would they be fodder for their fighters or sams if we utterly suppress their air defense capabilities? Russians might have good AA, but they cannot ignore the laws of numbers: if we emphasize our air power (and by "we" I mean "NATO") Russian AA will get crushed. From then on it's drones galore until some yahoo decides that "password" is an adequately secure passcode for the remote control of the drones.

And this makes sense because aircrafts is a sure way to battle anti-aircraft.

I think that post failed as much in a linguistical sense as a military sense.

[Graphic]

Remember this thing called TW? It was a game you could play. Along with all the military options, there was also a diplomacy tab.

THERE you have Europes offensive capabilities. Heck, we even had the US clean up our own dirty back yard not long ago (Serbia).

If sitting by and doing nothing while people die is a form of diplomacy, then yes that was a master stroke of diplomatic scheming by Europe.

[rvg]

And this makes sense because air power is a sure way to go up against AA?

Not to you. You can go ahead and advocate sending sending tanks against the AA. I hear they're really good at taking out jet fighters and chasing mobile AA platforms.

[Husar]

If sitting by and doing nothing while people die is a form of diplomacy, then yes that was a master stroke of diplomatic scheming by Europe.

You're right, Russia acted and ended the violence.
And now people whose heads are stuck in the 1950s have a problem with that.

[rvg]

You're right, Russia acted and ended the violence.
And now people whose heads are stuck in the 1950s have a problem with that.

There are lots of Russians and Russian speaking people living in Germany and they might need protection. You know what I'm saying?