Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jopax]

While it's nice to see them getting more stuff they can put to good use, one can't help but wonder what sort of logistics hell this is going to create for the Ukrainian army down the line. Having a bunch of leftover soviet stock (which itself had a bunch of different systems with overlapping purposes (hello T-64/T-72/T-80)) and then mixing in a smorgasbord of NATO tech into it is bound to cause issues. Even if they do have a certain amount of parts commonality, just the amount of different ammo types they'll need is headache inducing.

And while the eventual shift to mostly NATO stock is probably a good idea for long term sustainability and potential NATO integration, doing the transition during wartime is bound to cause issues. Then again, not like they have much choice in the matter right now.

[EuchreJack]

While it's nice to see them getting more stuff they can put to good use, one can't help but wonder what sort of logistics hell this is going to create for the Ukrainian army down the line. Having a bunch of leftover soviet stock (which itself had a bunch of different systems with overlapping purposes (hello T-64/T-72/T-80)) and then mixing in a smorgasbord of NATO tech into it is bound to cause issues. Even if they do have a certain amount of parts commonality, just the amount of different ammo types they'll need is headache inducing.

And while the eventual shift to mostly NATO stock is probably a good idea for long term sustainability and potential NATO integration, doing the transition during wartime is bound to cause issues. Then again, not like they have much choice in the matter right now.

Conversely, the Ukrainians Military can combine tech from East and West into Military Monstrosities we've never seen. 

[Lord Shonus]

While it's nice to see them getting more stuff they can put to good use, one can't help but wonder what sort of logistics hell this is going to create for the Ukrainian army down the line. Having a bunch of leftover soviet stock (which itself had a bunch of different systems with overlapping purposes (hello T-64/T-72/T-80)) and then mixing in a smorgasbord of NATO tech into it is bound to cause issues. Even if they do have a certain amount of parts commonality, just the amount of different ammo types they'll need is headache inducing.

And while the eventual shift to mostly NATO stock is probably a good idea for long term sustainability and potential NATO integration, doing the transition during wartime is bound to cause issues. Then again, not like they have much choice in the matter right now.

The Red Army did pretty fine mixing US, UK and native Soviet stuff in the Great Patriotic War. Then when the war was over they divested all the US and UK gear to focus on their own kit. They simply segregated the equipment as best they could tomease logistics.

[Strongpoint]

Conversely, the Ukrainians Military can combine tech from East and West into Military Monstrosities we've never seen. 

Yep! - https://en.defence-ua.com/weapon_and_tech/ukraines_buk_sam_will_receive_rim_7_sea_sparrow_missiles_which_solves_missile_shortage_problem-5354.html

However, as Politico says with reference to its own sources, that the Ukrainian military managed to adjust the existing Soviet-era Buk launchers to fire the Sea Sparrow, which means that regardless of the version of the missile, the issue of launching these missiles from Soviet systems already solved.

[EuchreJack]

Conversely, the Ukrainians Military can combine tech from East and West into Military Monstrosities we've never seen. 

Yep! - https://en.defence-ua.com/weapon_and_tech/ukraines_buk_sam_will_receive_rim_7_sea_sparrow_missiles_which_solves_missile_shortage_problem-5354.html

However, as Politico says with reference to its own sources, that the Ukrainian military managed to adjust the existing Soviet-era Buk launchers to fire the Sea Sparrow, which means that regardless of the version of the missile, the issue of launching these missiles from Soviet systems already solved.

Cool!  Please keep showing off the new creations!

I'm expecting the Ukrainian Army to start fielding Patriot Tanks: T-62 tanks fitted with Patriot Missiles.

[EuchreJack]

Uh, actually Ukraine could probably acquire a handful of Abrams if they wanted to pay for them out of their financing:
"Another $682 million in military financing will go to Eastern European countries to allow them to buy American weaponry and military equipment. Ukraine will also receive $225 million in military financing." Politico Article referenced above.

I'm no politico-military expert, but I actually think President Biden wants Ukraine to buy Abrams from the foreign countries that already have them, like Iraq, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia.  The issue, of course, is that most of the above budget would probably only cover a handful of Abrams.  But it would be a lot easier for President Biden to say to the American People "And Ukraine has already been able to field a dozen Abrams bought from the stockpiles of our allies to great effect, we are simply trying to supply more of our older Abrams from our stockpiles"

More hints:
The Bradley’s logistical requirements are “terrifically less burdensome than, say, those associated with an M1,” one of the U.S. officials said. “Our M1s would be a logistics burden that we would not want to put on [Ukraine] until they and we were confident they were ready.”

However, Hodges said the training and logistics challenge is “a solvable problem” if the U.S. begins instructing Ukrainian forces on the systems now.

“Let Ukraine pick 100 tankers that are experienced tank mechanics and send them to wherever the U.S. has Abrams tanks in Poland or send them back to Fort Benning, Ga., where the armor school is, and let them start learning now,” he said.
Translation: Get Poland to let you tinker with their Abrams, so you'll be ready when we can push this thing through.

[nenjin]

On the flip side, the Bradleys kind of suck from what I've read.

[Grim Portent]

Eh, if Ukraine needs tanks it's better to give them mediocre tanks they can use than super tanks they can't use. At least until they've hit a point where they can use the super tanks. Throwing high maintenance hardware into situations where there isn't the knowledge or infrastructure to maintain them has a history of being strategically foolish.

Not sure how long it takes a mechanic trained on Soviet gear to learn how to maintain a high end Western tank, but I imagine it's more than a bit of an adjustment.

[nenjin]

No, I get it. You need an entire logistics operation to run M1s, whereas the Bradley is essentially just a heavily uparmoed and weaponized motor vehicle.

But in Iraq and Afghanistan, they were routinely destroyed by improvised IEDs. RPGs will fuck up anything, but I remember reports of troops feeling like Bradleys were just deathtraps on wheels. Against an actual modern military force? I imagine they'd fair even worse.

Still, something with wheels, armor and guns is better than nothing. Just kinda feels partially like the DoD donating crappy tech to the war effort so they can go "welp, gonna need a budget increase for next year!"

[EuchreJack]

Eh, if Ukraine needs tanks it's better to give them mediocre tanks they can use than super tanks they can't use. At least until they've hit a point where they can use the super tanks. Throwing high maintenance hardware into situations where there isn't the knowledge or infrastructure to maintain them has a history of being strategically foolish.

Not sure how long it takes a mechanic trained on Soviet gear to learn how to maintain a high end Western tank, but I imagine it's more than a bit of an adjustment.

See, I feel like you didn't even read this part:
However, Hodges said the training and logistics challenge is “a solvable problem” if the U.S. begins instructing Ukrainian forces on the systems now.

“Let Ukraine pick 100 tankers that are experienced tank mechanics and send them to wherever the U.S. has Abrams tanks in Poland or send them back to Fort Benning, Ga., where the armor school is, and let them start learning now,” he said.

Now, maybe you don't understand US Official Speak, so I'll translate:
Retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, a former commander of U.S. Army Europe to Ukraine: "Send your mechanics to learn from Poland, so I can tell the politicians to Shut The Fuck Up. Then we'll shame them into giving you the tanks!
Or hey, maybe call up the Pentagon and request we train your guys in Fort Benning, Georgia. Oh hey, didn't we just offer to give you the Bradley, a companion vehicle to the Abrams? Couldn't you like SAY you wanted to train up on the Bradley at Fort Benning, then work your way into the Abrams? We'll pose with some reporters and talk about you getting the tanks until the politicians have no choice!"


...Thankfully, I have full faith in Ukraine's ability to read between the lines.  God Bless 'Em.

[Madman198237]

So the Abrams is not too much more of a logistics problem than any tank is; the problem is that things meant to work with Soviet tanks are completely non-interchangeable with things meant to work with Western MBTs. It also runs on a gas turbine, which, being a jet engine, is pretty much able to be fueled with anything that will burn.

The logistics problems with the Abrams principally revolve around the fact that the thing is a 70-ton monster. Not a single ARV (Armored Recovery Vehicle), tank transporter, rail car, etc. in Ukraine is equipped to repair, get un-stuck, or move an Abrams. The Abrams is probably the best MBT in the world because the US needed it to do everything. It has to fight anywhere, in every environment on the planet, in any situation. And meeting that pushed the weight through the roof. In practical terms, much as I personally like the Abrams, it would be better for Ukraine to get some Leopard 2s. They're 10-15 tons lighter than the Abrams and will work pretty well.

As for cost, Wikipedia says of the Abrams that it is "Estimated in 2016 as US$8.92 million (with inflation adjustment)". Expensive but we're not talking jet fighters here. They could receive a lot of the things at the funding level they're getting, it'd just be an issue of also supplying them with ARVs and tank transporters and etc. etc. etc. the things that let a tank force keep going.


The Bradley is not a simple "uparmored motor vehicle"; it is every bit as complex as an Abrams. But what it isn't is 70 tons, so Ukraine's existing infrastructure can handle it. It's also not that vulnerable. Sure, we lost some to IEDs, but when five to ten 105mm artillery shells go up right underneath your vehicle there is nothing you can do about it no matter how much armor you're packing. Bradleys are at least resistant to the threats expected when they were designed, i.e. Soviet standard AT mines. RPGs will kill Bradleys because they're not composite-armored, but the only thing I know of that is is the Boxer AFV/PUMA (In German service). Baseline Bradleys were relatively vulnerable to a lot of threats, but that's because they're an IFV and not a tank. The general solution to things like RPGs is "your infantry will kill the RPG team first" and the solution to tanks is "dead center low, give 'em a TOW".


Basically, the Bradley isn't the be-all end-all of armored vehicle design but it is a solidly competent IFV, and more importantly it is a solidly competent IFV that packs a massive punch even relative to more modern vehicles of its class.

[Strongpoint]

Leopard 2 is a way more practical solution of the tank problem than the gas turbine 70 ton monstrosity called Abrams.

But in Iraq and Afghanistan, they were routinely destroyed by improvised IEDs. RPGs will fuck up anything, but I remember reports of troops feeling like Bradleys were just deathtraps on wheels. Against an actual modern military force? I imagine they'd fair even worse.

If you think that BMPs would fare better against infantry ambushes, you are mistaken. Just to illustrate, recorded and confirmed loses of IFV of Ukrainian army (real are way higher, especially with wear and tear included):

231 BMP-1
83 BMP-2
67 BTR-4

Those need to be replaced. And Bradleys are definitely better than BMPs, especially in the department of crew survivability.

[Lord Shonus]

The Bradley gets a bad reputation from Pentagon Wars, a "documentary" that plays very fast and loose with the facts. Reality doesn't really bear that reputation out.

Yes, it has vulnerability issues - until we manage to make them out of solid doesntexistium, any vehicle that tries to combine troop carriage and decent firepower into one chassis is going to have protection issues. No getting around that. Compared to the BMP series, however, the Bradley comes off very well. The armor is quite a bit better in field service, and when they have been knocked out they tend to become a wreck that people can get out of. Meanwhile most of the BMPs we have seen get hit leave noting but a crater (because of the ludicrous amounts of ammunition) or a puddle of melted aluminum "because the designers went to insane extremes trying to cut weight. Sometimes the only reason we know a given scorch mark was a Russian BMP is because the hit was caught on video. The rest of the time, it winds up as "unknown vehicle" in the Oryx list because there are no pieces big enough to identify.

A mix of AMX-10Ps, Bradley and Marder IFVs, and additional support artillery coming into action just in time for the late spring offensive season is likely to provide a flanking force straight from Hell.

[Strongpoint]

Meanwhile most of the BMPs we have seen get hit leave noting but a crater (because of the ludicrous amounts of ammunition) or a puddle of melted aluminum "because the designers went to insane extremes trying to cut weight

No, BMPs aren't made from aluminum. BMDs, special mobile coffins for paratroopers, are made of aluminum. I am really grateful that Russia packed its best troops in those in February 2022, one of their best decisions.

[Il Palazzo]

I don't know what videos you've been watching, Shonus. Of the half a dozen or so that I've seen, not a single BMP evaporated like what you describe.