Lähdin seuraamaan Brynn Tannehillin threadejä sodasta säännöllisesti viime vuonna sen jälkeen, kun huomasin niiden olevan aina täyttä asiaa. Brynnillä on takana palvelus USA:n asevoimissa, jossa hän työskenteli ilmavoimien helikopterilentäjänä eri puolilla maailmaa.
Brynn julkaisi hetki sitten kirjoituksen tankeista. Avasin koko thredin alle (en tee niin enää toiste). Ottakaa seurantaan, jos kiinnostaa.
Alta selviää mm. että USA:n Ukrainalle luvatut Abrams-tankit ovat M1A2 -vientiversioita, joista puuttuu köyhdytettyä uraania hyödyntävä laminaattipanssari. Brynn myös väittää, että vientiversiot valmistetaan Ukrainalle – eli aikaa kuluu. @jps tämän jo aiemmin toi esille ja oli oikeassa.
Jutusta kuitenkin selviää, että Ukrainalle toimitettavat Bradley taisteluajoneuvot (109 kpl) tuhosivat tankkeja esim. Irakin (1.) sodassa enemmän kuin Abramsit. Bradley:ssä on tehokkaita ja tarkkoja panssarintorjuntaohjuksia, mutta myös sen 25mm:n tykin kerrotaan läpäisseen Venäläisen T-72:n (vientiversio) panssarin lähitaistelussa sivuilta ja takaa.
A thread on tanks in Ukraine, given all the movement happening this week. First, the good news: the spigots have opened and modern Western MBTs will be headed to Ukraine. Bad news: eventually, and not in numbers large enough to change the outcome yet 1/n
From what I’ve been told, there was intense, and at time angry, wrangling between the US and Germany over this. Despite German denials, it appears that reports that Germany was insisting on the US sending M1s first was correct. 2/n
The US will be sending 31 export versions of the M1A2, which lack the classified depleted uranium (DU) laminate armor. However, they will have modern sensors and fire control, giving them a reach advantage over Russian tanks. 3/n
There’s a lot of discussion about the M1 in service with the AFU, but I gladly defer to the judgment of Gen @MarkHertling who spent his long career as an armor officer. The short version: the M1 is a PITA to maintain. 4/n
The US won’t be sending M1s to Ukraine for quite a while: they need to manufacture the export version because they can’t just grab old US tanks out of storage w/o waiving the export controls. Both are why I believe the M1 decision was a political one to appease German demands 5/n
M1s aren’t ideal in other ways. Their multi-fuel turbine engines are less fuel efficient than old-school diesel engines. It has a higher (15.4 psi) ground pressure than the Leopard 2 (11.8) or the Challenger 2 (14.3). Given the raputitsa, this may matter. 6/n
Next, the UK is sending 14 Challenger 2’s to Ukraine. This adds yet ANOTHER tank variant to AFU inventory, thereby complicating logistics and maint, esp b/c the Challenger has unique ammunition and rifled barrel. 7/n
The Challenger 2 wasn’t built in huge numbers like the Abrams or Leopard 2. It does however run on a 12 cylinder turbo diesel, making it a little easier to maintain, and a little more fuel efficient than the M1. It’s not a long term solution, and this too is probs political. 8/n
Which brings us to the Leopard 2. There’s general consensus that this is the best modern western MBT available for reasons of maintenance, logistics, ease of delivery, ubiquity (3600+ produced), ammunition, etc… But is it enough? 8/n
Answer: probably not enough to be decisive. Ukraine claims that it needs 300 Western MBTs to be decisive. This is a scattering of different types of tanks delivered over a wide time period, even if they are all very good systems. 9/n
Deploying armory in “penny packets” meant to support infantry was the French and British concept for how to use armor… in early 1940. It, uh…, didn’t work out so well. Since then concentration has been the meta. 10/n
This is not to say that there aren’t other sources of armor: allies have provided almost 500 tanks to Ukraine already. However, they’re mostly unique “home brew” models of T-72s and antique T-55s, making the log/maint equation even worse. 11/n
Worth noting: there’s also been a standing offer by Rheinmetall to send 50-100 older stored Leopard 1 tanks to Ukraine. They’re much older, and are (very roughly) equivalent to a T-62 with upgraded targeting capabilities. But, hodge-podge problem. 12/n
Lost in all of this is the US sending 109 Bradley IFVs to Ukraine. They’re not tanks, and FFS don’t try to use them like tanks. But it’s easy to forget that Bradleys killed more Iraqi tanks in Gulf 1 than M1s. 13/n
Not only do the TOW missiles on Bradleys work well against tanks, but their 25mm canons were able to disable export T-72s from the side and rear at close range at the battle of 73 Easting. 14/n
In the end, though, this is all about Ukraine squeezing everything out of its armed forces they can. They need infantry, light armor, MBTs, drones, artillery, all working together as part of combined arms. NATO is working to train the AFU. 15/n
AFU is beginning to round out their order of battle to support effective combined arms operations. However, even with the latest promises, it’s probably not enough to be decisive, and will be flowing to the field in a trickle. 16/n
Now, if training ramps up, along with deliveries, and the flow doesn’t stop with the end of the US money included in the December omnibus, we could see decisive effects. But, in some ways this reminds me of the slow ramp up we saw in Vietnam. 17/n
Post Script: I’m extremely disappointed in the government of Israel refusing to send purely defensive I-Hawk missiles to Ukraine. I-Hawk is a cold war relic that they have no need for now. 18/n
Given that Russia is clearly targeting civilian infrastructure which has no military value (children’s hospitals, schools, etc…), and the US support in 1973’s Operation Nickle Grass, it feels like Netanyahu is failing morally while taking the US for granted. 19/n
To use one of my favorite quotes from the inimitable Jeff Goldblum in “Igby Goes Down”: “You know what I think you’ve been up to? I think you’ve been p****** in the well from which you drink. That’s what I think you’ve been up to.” 20/n
