(01-24-2023, 06:15 AM)81alum Wrote: Goose mentioned how hollowed-out the German military currently is. This NYT piece reflects that very well. There is a major cultural shift beginning to happen there, but it will take a long time to rebuild. Following is a gift link--hopefully it works.Thanks for this link. There is lots of interesting data in this article, but IMO the situation in Germany is very complex and most of the treatments in the US press get lots of it wrong. One example from the article: "Conscription in Germany, a relic of the Cold War, was suspended in 2011,". Conscription in Germany goes back to before the foundation of the German Empire. It was "the link between the Army and the people". It had a very distinct socialization function, even for people who didn't get called. While there were many things about it that were not "optimal" (from both a military and social point of view) in the late 20th and early 21st century, the function it performed was still critical. Replacing it with nothing was a big problem. The military predicted it would be thus, and they were correct.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/magaz...=share-url
(01-24-2023, 06:15 AM)81alum Wrote: Goose mentioned how hollowed-out the German military currently is. This NYT piece reflects that very well. There is a major cultural shift beginning to happen there, but it will take a long time to rebuild. Following is a gift link--hopefully it works.Thanks for this link. There is lots of interesting data in this article, but IMO the situation in Germany is very complex and most of the treatments in the US press get lots of it wrong. One example from the article: "Conscription in Germany, a relic of the Cold War, was suspended in 2011,". Conscription in Germany goes back to before the foundation of the German Empire. It was "the link between the Army and the people". It had a very distinct socialization function, even for people who didn't get called. While there were many things about it that were not "optimal" (from both a military and social point of view) in the late 20th and early 21st century, the function it performed was still critical. Replacing it with nothing was a big problem. The military predicted it would be thus, and they were correct.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/magaz...=share-url
(01-24-2023, 10:27 AM)dabigv13 Wrote: https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status/...OtTdMRctBQFirst of all, one has to say it is great this is happening. I for one hope we announce we are sending Abrams and then don't actually do it until at least June. Ukraine has enough on it's plate absorbing the Leopards. Let them train on the Abrams in Germany (or the US for that matter) before we send it. If that is what it takes to open the faucet, it's worth it. It should be noted that the USMC recently gave up it's 452 M1A1 tanks. These tanks were fully combat capable and ready to go. The US army uses M1A2s, so the older model isn't all that attractive to them. Ukraine OTOH can certainly use them, but only when they are trained to do so.
Nice
https://twitter.com/vonderburchard/statu...Rjs6SRtdlA
Even better. Seems like Ukraine is going to get a sizeable amount of tanks to go along with the 150+ new Bradley's and Marders.
https://twitter.com/MarQs__/status/16179...RpfUGqVedg
The 2A6 is a pretty new variant. I'm expecting that the hodgepodge of Leopards Ukraine gets will likely comprise several different variants given that it seems Ukraine is going to be receiving tanks from many different countries, the Ukrainian logistics officers are going to have their hands full.
https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/16179...YlLqMUvTeQ
(01-24-2023, 01:38 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: https://twitter.com/johnismay/status/161...a9SffkEG_gYou are absolutely right about that! My concern is the lead time on actually getting this going, but at least people are paying attention to the problem. The US military-industrial base isn't used to moving fast any more, and they need to do so in this case. This is 6 months later than it should have been IMO, as this problem was entirely foreseeable (and actually was pointed out by several sources). We are damn lucky this happened because of Ukraine and not because the US was involved in ground war someplace.
More important news than the tanks
(01-24-2023, 10:27 AM)dabigv13 Wrote: https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status/...OtTdMRctBQFirst of all, one has to say it is great this is happening. I for one hope we announce we are sending Abrams and then don't actually do it until at least June. Ukraine has enough on it's plate absorbing the Leopards. Let them train on the Abrams in Germany (or the US for that matter) before we send it. If that is what it takes to open the faucet, it's worth it. It should be noted that the USMC recently gave up it's 452 M1A1 tanks. These tanks were fully combat capable and ready to go. The US army uses M1A2s, so the older model isn't all that attractive to them. Ukraine OTOH can certainly use them, but only when they are trained to do so.
Nice
https://twitter.com/vonderburchard/statu...Rjs6SRtdlA
Even better. Seems like Ukraine is going to get a sizeable amount of tanks to go along with the 150+ new Bradley's and Marders.
https://twitter.com/MarQs__/status/16179...RpfUGqVedg
The 2A6 is a pretty new variant. I'm expecting that the hodgepodge of Leopards Ukraine gets will likely comprise several different variants given that it seems Ukraine is going to be receiving tanks from many different countries, the Ukrainian logistics officers are going to have their hands full.
https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/16179...YlLqMUvTeQ
(01-24-2023, 01:38 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: https://twitter.com/johnismay/status/161...a9SffkEG_gYou are absolutely right about that! My concern is the lead time on actually getting this going, but at least people are paying attention to the problem. The US military-industrial base isn't used to moving fast any more, and they need to do so in this case. This is 6 months later than it should have been IMO, as this problem was entirely foreseeable (and actually was pointed out by several sources). We are damn lucky this happened because of Ukraine and not because the US was involved in ground war someplace.
More important news than the tanks
Quote:The equipment in the new U.S. aid package, combined with the previous one, includes capabilities equivalent to at least two combined arms maneuver brigades or six mechanized infantry battalions, 10 motorized infantry battalions, and four artillery battalions, Milley said.That isn't quite correct, because a combined arms brigade needs to have at least a few tanks, but allowing for that it gives an idea of what we are providing. The force described isn't an Armored Brigade Combat Team but it is "heavier" than an Infantry Brigade Combat Team. It is a lot of firepower. Now for the training.
Quote:The equipment in the new U.S. aid package, combined with the previous one, includes capabilities equivalent to at least two combined arms maneuver brigades or six mechanized infantry battalions, 10 motorized infantry battalions, and four artillery battalions, Milley said.That isn't quite correct, because a combined arms brigade needs to have at least a few tanks, but allowing for that it gives an idea of what we are providing. The force described isn't an Armored Brigade Combat Team but it is "heavier" than an Infantry Brigade Combat Team. It is a lot of firepower. Now for the training.
(01-24-2023, 02:26 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: All's well that ends well?
--Erdogan's gripes about Sweden notwithstanding, I do think Norway and Sweden eventually will make it into NATO.
(01-24-2023, 02:26 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: All's well that ends well?
--Erdogan's gripes about Sweden notwithstanding, I do think Norway and Sweden eventually will make it into NATO.
(01-24-2023, 01:46 PM)Goose Wrote:(01-24-2023, 10:27 AM)dabigv13 Wrote: https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status/...OtTdMRctBQFirst of all, one has to say it is great this is happening. I for one hope we announce we are sending Abrams and then don't actually do it until at least June. Ukraine has enough on it's plate absorbing the Leopards. Let them train on the Abrams in Germany (or the US for that matter) before we send it. If that is what it takes to open the faucet, it's worth it. It should be noted that the USMC recently gave up it's 452 M1A1 tanks. These tanks were fully combat capable and ready to go. The US army uses M1A2s, so the older model isn't all that attractive to them. Ukraine OTOH can certainly use them, but only when they are trained to do so.
Nice
https://twitter.com/vonderburchard/statu...Rjs6SRtdlA
Even better. Seems like Ukraine is going to get a sizeable amount of tanks to go along with the 150+ new Bradley's and Marders.
https://twitter.com/MarQs__/status/16179...RpfUGqVedg
The 2A6 is a pretty new variant. I'm expecting that the hodgepodge of Leopards Ukraine gets will likely comprise several different variants given that it seems Ukraine is going to be receiving tanks from many different countries, the Ukrainian logistics officers are going to have their hands full.
https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/16179...YlLqMUvTeQ
It is not just the logistics troops that will have a problem with the different versions. The tank crews themselves will too. The physical locations and operating instructions of equipment in the various variants are different. In a battle, knowing how to do things quickly is life and death. It is going to be hard enough for the Ukrainians to "master" one new tank. When their A6 is down for maintenance and you put the crew in an A4, bad things can easily happen. One area that is a real problem is communications gear, because that evolves rapidly. Different countries have different fits based on when the tank was last upgraded. There is going to have to be some real attention payed to how these tanks can talk to each other. If the tanks arrive in "company" size lots (14 tanks in US usage) they should be interchangeable at that level. That will help, but even in that case they need to talk to their other elements. All this will have to be worked out and practiced. Of course, one has to realize having these problems is better than having no tanks.
(01-24-2023, 01:38 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: https://twitter.com/johnismay/status/161...a9SffkEG_gYou are absolutely right about that! My concern is the lead time on actually getting this going, but at least people are paying attention to the problem. The US military-industrial base isn't used to moving fast any more, and they need to do so in this case. This is 6 months later than it should have been IMO, as this problem was entirely foreseeable (and actually was pointed out by several sources). We are damn lucky this happened because of Ukraine and not because the US was involved in ground war someplace.
More important news than the tanks
(01-24-2023, 01:46 PM)Goose Wrote:(01-24-2023, 10:27 AM)dabigv13 Wrote: https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status/...OtTdMRctBQFirst of all, one has to say it is great this is happening. I for one hope we announce we are sending Abrams and then don't actually do it until at least June. Ukraine has enough on it's plate absorbing the Leopards. Let them train on the Abrams in Germany (or the US for that matter) before we send it. If that is what it takes to open the faucet, it's worth it. It should be noted that the USMC recently gave up it's 452 M1A1 tanks. These tanks were fully combat capable and ready to go. The US army uses M1A2s, so the older model isn't all that attractive to them. Ukraine OTOH can certainly use them, but only when they are trained to do so.
Nice
https://twitter.com/vonderburchard/statu...Rjs6SRtdlA
Even better. Seems like Ukraine is going to get a sizeable amount of tanks to go along with the 150+ new Bradley's and Marders.
https://twitter.com/MarQs__/status/16179...RpfUGqVedg
The 2A6 is a pretty new variant. I'm expecting that the hodgepodge of Leopards Ukraine gets will likely comprise several different variants given that it seems Ukraine is going to be receiving tanks from many different countries, the Ukrainian logistics officers are going to have their hands full.
https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/16179...YlLqMUvTeQ
It is not just the logistics troops that will have a problem with the different versions. The tank crews themselves will too. The physical locations and operating instructions of equipment in the various variants are different. In a battle, knowing how to do things quickly is life and death. It is going to be hard enough for the Ukrainians to "master" one new tank. When their A6 is down for maintenance and you put the crew in an A4, bad things can easily happen. One area that is a real problem is communications gear, because that evolves rapidly. Different countries have different fits based on when the tank was last upgraded. There is going to have to be some real attention payed to how these tanks can talk to each other. If the tanks arrive in "company" size lots (14 tanks in US usage) they should be interchangeable at that level. That will help, but even in that case they need to talk to their other elements. All this will have to be worked out and practiced. Of course, one has to realize having these problems is better than having no tanks.
(01-24-2023, 01:38 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: https://twitter.com/johnismay/status/161...a9SffkEG_gYou are absolutely right about that! My concern is the lead time on actually getting this going, but at least people are paying attention to the problem. The US military-industrial base isn't used to moving fast any more, and they need to do so in this case. This is 6 months later than it should have been IMO, as this problem was entirely foreseeable (and actually was pointed out by several sources). We are damn lucky this happened because of Ukraine and not because the US was involved in ground war someplace.
More important news than the tanks
(01-24-2023, 11:44 PM)gocard14 Wrote: Sounds like you get your wish re:taking their time with the Abrams.It looks to me that (as you suggest) we just announced this to give cover to the Germans. Anything that we "order from the manufacturers" is year(s) away. Presumably the Polish order will be in front of the Ukrainian one and the Poles are real dissatisfied with their delivery lead time. If we wanted these tanks to be there anytime soon we do have plenty of perfectly good M1A1s we could send tomorrow. We have downsized enough we probably have M1A2s we could send, although I don't know that for certain. The US has said that we have to look at what Ukraine needs after they win this war. Perhaps this order (if it actually happens) will be part of that. It certainly isn't going to help Ukraine anytime soon. The other 6 NASAMS will hopefully arrive before then.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...s-ukraine/
The relevant info is that they are “ordering them from manufacturers “ and not using “existing US stocks”. I’m not 100% what that means since my impression is we were not producing new Abrams hulls, just upgrading existing ones, but sounds like it will be a while before tanks are shipped. Furthermore they emphasize the only reason we announce it now is to get the Germans moving on the Leopards. I also wonder how much of the repair and service aspects can be set up in Poland, who require this anyways for their upcoming M1 shipments.
(01-24-2023, 11:44 PM)gocard14 Wrote: Sounds like you get your wish re:taking their time with the Abrams.It looks to me that (as you suggest) we just announced this to give cover to the Germans. Anything that we "order from the manufacturers" is year(s) away. Presumably the Polish order will be in front of the Ukrainian one and the Poles are real dissatisfied with their delivery lead time. If we wanted these tanks to be there anytime soon we do have plenty of perfectly good M1A1s we could send tomorrow. We have downsized enough we probably have M1A2s we could send, although I don't know that for certain. The US has said that we have to look at what Ukraine needs after they win this war. Perhaps this order (if it actually happens) will be part of that. It certainly isn't going to help Ukraine anytime soon. The other 6 NASAMS will hopefully arrive before then.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...s-ukraine/
The relevant info is that they are “ordering them from manufacturers “ and not using “existing US stocks”. I’m not 100% what that means since my impression is we were not producing new Abrams hulls, just upgrading existing ones, but sounds like it will be a while before tanks are shipped. Furthermore they emphasize the only reason we announce it now is to get the Germans moving on the Leopards. I also wonder how much of the repair and service aspects can be set up in Poland, who require this anyways for their upcoming M1 shipments.
(01-25-2023, 01:38 PM)fullmetal Wrote: A talking head on NPR opined that the logistics and training lead times required mean that Ukraine won't be able to deploy the Abrams in time for a spring offensive, which makes sense. Does the same apply to the Leopards, or are those more familiar to the AFU?
(01-25-2023, 02:40 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: We keep hearing about Ukraine’s anticipated springtime offensive. Obviously, the sooner Ukraine retakes it’s territory, the better. But from a tactical perspective, is there any reason it’s better for Ukraine to attack in April than say July? Is it better tactics, on balance, to take the fight to Russia at a time and place of Ukraine’s choosing? Or could Ukraine do better, from a tactical perspective, by laying in wait for Russia’s anticipated offensive with the newly mobilized troops?It is essentially impossible for Ukraine to effectively use the tanks/IFVs it will be getting for a "spring" offensive. We aren't even really sure when they will be getting some of them and how many. That doesn't mean there won't be an offensive, but it does mean Ukraine can't rely on these new capabilities to execute it.
(01-25-2023, 01:38 PM)fullmetal Wrote: A talking head on NPR opined that the logistics and training lead times required mean that Ukraine won't be able to deploy the Abrams in time for a spring offensive, which makes sense. Does the same apply to the Leopards, or are those more familiar to the AFU?
(01-25-2023, 02:40 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: We keep hearing about Ukraine’s anticipated springtime offensive. Obviously, the sooner Ukraine retakes it’s territory, the better. But from a tactical perspective, is there any reason it’s better for Ukraine to attack in April than say July? Is it better tactics, on balance, to take the fight to Russia at a time and place of Ukraine’s choosing? Or could Ukraine do better, from a tactical perspective, by laying in wait for Russia’s anticipated offensive with the newly mobilized troops?It is essentially impossible for Ukraine to effectively use the tanks/IFVs it will be getting for a "spring" offensive. We aren't even really sure when they will be getting some of them and how many. That doesn't mean there won't be an offensive, but it does mean Ukraine can't rely on these new capabilities to execute it.
Quote:2A4 -> 2A5: Refinement of the armor composites, steel cowling over turret for better protection, addition of spall liners, the commander’s sight was moved and given thermal imaging, the hatches were made stronger, and the turret controls were changed to all electric.The absence of spall liners in the 2A4 is a big negative for the crew. The tank may survive the hit but the crew may not because of spalled metal killing them. The commanders sight wasn't just moved and given thermal capability, it was made equivalent to the gunner's sight. It is a very different beast than the one in the 2A4 and has much greater utility. This is a big training issue as the commander of an A4 is much more likely to be operating with his head out of the tank than the A5 or later. The L55 has higher muzzle velocity and shoots farther. The software makes that transparent to the gunner but it can't increase the range of the L44 gun. Probably not a big deal. The all electric turret obviously uses different spare parts than the A4. Some differences in performance as well, but probably not critical.
2A5 -> 2A6: Gun changed to the 120mm L55 from the 120mm L44, with later modifications (2A6M) adding additional protection on the belly against mines.
2A6 -> 2A7: Better climate control, a new APU, new fire control systems, upgraded networks, new intercom system, new fire suppression systems, and mountings on the hull for external armor packages.
Quote:2A4 -> 2A5: Refinement of the armor composites, steel cowling over turret for better protection, addition of spall liners, the commander’s sight was moved and given thermal imaging, the hatches were made stronger, and the turret controls were changed to all electric.The absence of spall liners in the 2A4 is a big negative for the crew. The tank may survive the hit but the crew may not because of spalled metal killing them. The commanders sight wasn't just moved and given thermal capability, it was made equivalent to the gunner's sight. It is a very different beast than the one in the 2A4 and has much greater utility. This is a big training issue as the commander of an A4 is much more likely to be operating with his head out of the tank than the A5 or later. The L55 has higher muzzle velocity and shoots farther. The software makes that transparent to the gunner but it can't increase the range of the L44 gun. Probably not a big deal. The all electric turret obviously uses different spare parts than the A4. Some differences in performance as well, but probably not critical.
2A5 -> 2A6: Gun changed to the 120mm L55 from the 120mm L44, with later modifications (2A6M) adding additional protection on the belly against mines.
2A6 -> 2A7: Better climate control, a new APU, new fire control systems, upgraded networks, new intercom system, new fire suppression systems, and mountings on the hull for external armor packages.
(01-25-2023, 04:39 PM)Goose Wrote: It is essentially impossible for Ukraine to effectively use the tanks/IFVs it will be getting for a "spring" offensive. We aren't even really sure when they will be getting some of them and how many. That doesn't mean there won't be an offensive, but it does mean Ukraine can't rely on these new capabilities to execute it.
(01-25-2023, 04:39 PM)Goose Wrote: It is essentially impossible for Ukraine to effectively use the tanks/IFVs it will be getting for a "spring" offensive. We aren't even really sure when they will be getting some of them and how many. That doesn't mean there won't be an offensive, but it does mean Ukraine can't rely on these new capabilities to execute it.
(01-25-2023, 06:09 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: We've been hearing a lot about Ukraine getting more equipment. NASAMs, JDAMs, Patriots, GLSDBs, IFVs, Strykers, etc. Is Ukraine likely to be trained up enough to use any of this equipment to defend against the mobilization fueled Russian offensive that we anticipate is coming? Or are we really looking at summer or early fall before we see much of the new equipment in battle? Thanks again for your expert input.I am far from an expert, but IMO the "offensive" weapons like tanks, IFVs, and Strykers require a more than a bit of training to use. Some of that is going on now in Grafenwöhr, but that is 500 troops. A Brigade Combat Team, which is about what they have equipment for (confirmed by people other than myself) requires about 10 times that. Granted, they don't all have to be "fully" trained but I don't see a way to get such a unit anywhere close to ready in less than 6 months. Add to that we don't even really know exactly when they will get what.
(01-25-2023, 06:09 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: We've been hearing a lot about Ukraine getting more equipment. NASAMs, JDAMs, Patriots, GLSDBs, IFVs, Strykers, etc. Is Ukraine likely to be trained up enough to use any of this equipment to defend against the mobilization fueled Russian offensive that we anticipate is coming? Or are we really looking at summer or early fall before we see much of the new equipment in battle? Thanks again for your expert input.I am far from an expert, but IMO the "offensive" weapons like tanks, IFVs, and Strykers require a more than a bit of training to use. Some of that is going on now in Grafenwöhr, but that is 500 troops. A Brigade Combat Team, which is about what they have equipment for (confirmed by people other than myself) requires about 10 times that. Granted, they don't all have to be "fully" trained but I don't see a way to get such a unit anywhere close to ready in less than 6 months. Add to that we don't even really know exactly when they will get what.
