23012

If I’m in Fort Bliss or Fort Hood, I’m basically begging to be sent to some civilized place in Europe. Also, where do they keep the 2nd Armored Division these days? Oh, I see it doesn’t exist anymore. I guess I’m old.

23013

Wagner having problems:

23014

Reports of a new Russian offensive.

23015

Huh. Vuhledar in google maps shows a bitty little town amongst a lot of other little bitty little towns in a flat expanse of fields that goes on forever. Maybe ‘in the heights’ is a relative term, but it’s hard to imagine this town is pivotal to anything, other than being a place they’re getting attacked?

23016

You can at least get them to waste a whole lot of drones and artillery on decoy Abrams. Also, wherever they go the Russians will be compelled to reinforce, so use that to pull them away from your real objectives. I doubt the real value of having Abrams in Ukraine will be from their actual battlefield performance.

23017

I can’t imagine why Wagner would be having recruitment problems after frontline reports of 90% casualty rates and mutilations or executions for anyone who retreats without being wounded or is captured.

It takes real talent to make the Gulag preferable.

23018

Would that mean giving more power to Kadyrov? Why do I have a strong feeling that enabling the leader of one of your most rebellious regions will backfire as soon as Russian political stability starts to wobble?

23019

Remains to be seen. Could be spot on, but I think there are some ways these tanks could be quite useful in direct combat. If the Ukrainians wind up with 31 Abrams, that’s enough for one solid company plus a good amount of replacements. That company could be a very effective spearhead for a counter attack or an offensive thrust. The power of 17-20 Abrams concentrated and well crewed is nothing to sneeze at.

23020

Yeah, there are apparently zero Abrams maintenance facilities in Europe; I guess as a result of the end of permanent basing of US army units and the fact that no European army bought Abrams before Poland.

In the early months when the UA was getting used to all of its new Western artillery, a lot of guns were damaged due to accidental misuse. They could be shipped across the border, fixed, then sent back. An M1 with a serious mechanical failure (i.e. not fixable in the field) is probably going to be a permanent loss.

23021

I do think they’ll actually use the Abrams at some point, I just think they’ll be able to use the threat of them to greater effect.

23022

The fleet in being effect. Yeah that’ll do a lot of harm to the russians.

Rolling them a rough 120 miles deep into the orcs posteriors will do a whole lot more harm. What’s the range of an abrams on a single tank of gas? What’s the chance it’ll immobilise over that run? I’m thinking mega thunder run…

As for repair and logistics, I fully expect to experience the full power of an operational HATO support structure, because every uniform west of the russian border is itching to fuck with them.

23023

A fun little display of the Leopard’s gun stabilizer in action.

23024

I think some folks (not necessarily here, just in general) don’t really get how much modern tank design has come since even the Cold War era, much less what many people still think of when they think of armored warfare, which would be WWII. In the past effective use of armor required, well, a lot of it; even in the mid-late Cold War period quantity was a big equalizing factor (though arguably by around 1990 that had really shifted towards quality finally). A relatively small number of tanks, be they Shermans or M60s or Leo 1s would be hard-pressed to make any headway against a much larger force.

Fast forward to 2023, and it’s entirely possible, even likely, that if Ukraine can field even a battalion of modern MBTs, properly crewed, supplied, and supported, they will be able to do immense damage to the Russians and would be able to defeat a much larger force equipped like the Russians are at the moment. Modern MBTs like Leo 2s and Abrams can fire farther, more accurately, and with greater effect than anything folks have yet seen in this war, and they can do it on the move, in any weather, day or night. Provided, of course, they have the crews, training, and support they need.

23025

So I guess my assumption is that the Leopards and Challengers will be just as adept at doing this and will be easier to sustain while doing so. But the Abrams will have an outsized psychological impact, due to being the big scary American tank, even if it’s combat contribution is less than the other Western MBTs.

23026

How much of a difference is it going to be if most of them are Leo 2A4s or 2A5s instead of 2A6s? Per @Grifman’s tweet quote upthread it looks like there aren’t actually going to be as many 2A6s as originally claimed, with the vast majority of Leopards being older 2A4 or possibly 2A5 variants.

23027

I’m not a rivet-counter, but much of the difference is in the armor, from what I recall. The A5 and A6 received multiple upgrades in that area. The A5 got a new gun as well (L55 replacing L44), although both are 120mm.

23028

The modern battlefield is incredibly deadly so it might just as well happen that that battalion is out of action (which doesn’t mean 100% losses mind) within half an hour. Killing these vehicles, if only for the propaganda effect, will be high on Russia’s priority list. In any case, these tanks should (and hopefully will) never work on their own…

23029

2a4 is still using a hydraulic system to move gun/turret, which is more dangerous (highly burnable fluid at high pressure - what could possibly go wrong) and less comfortable (loud&hot). In terms of sensors the 2a4 only has a single thermal imager (mostly for the gunner) while in the newer ones the commander has his own TI (with a better resolution to boot) so it’s much more effective/survivable.

2a5 also has much improved armor protection, not only against direct impacts (hits from other vehicles…) but also against mines and artillery

Finally 2a5 adds Battlefield Management Systems for the commander but of course such systems are highly specific to the user (=army) so i wouldn’t expect them to be much use (the tanks are from all over the continent so lots of variation - these components will probably be ripped out, Ukraine might just as well put starlink-enabled ipads in their place, would be much more effective Imo)

23030

Are the leopards on par with the Abrams?

I kind of expect the answer is no, but if they are, they will wreck Russian armor. The Abrams is crazy how accurate it can fire while moving at speed.

23031

I’m a bit worried about that too. Turkey ended up with a fair amount of burning and wrecked Leopard 2’s (IIRC they were 2A4s). I’ve seen claims that it’s because they were going up against insurgents getting behind them with ATGMs. But same thing could happen to the Ukrainians.

I do think we should expect a fair amount of these to get lost. If they get lost leading to more Ukrainian land reclaimed, then that’s all good. The big problem would be if Ukraine sends them out as an armored fist and it just gets smashed against the Russian entrenchments. That would be very bad, and if it happens I think you’ll see behind the scenes people like Scholz or Macron (not to mention the Trumpian wing of the US Republican Party) pushing the Ukrainians to settle.

So here’s hoping the Ukrainians don’t fail in their big push with Western tanks. If the first attack is a success, probably future give and take would be less of an issue. But that first push being successful is going to be very important from a propaganda, foreign policy/foreign support standpoint.